- '7. v—— —————_—— —_—,,——_7, 7 v
. a~ - T .. . . . , V E. .. . .. 7‘ ..,.‘.. . .wu ,. --s .nuu-u. .‘ .m...“ ~.*mufimrntm-.~h,q

USES OF THE MEDIA
AND MEDIA IMPACT:
NEWS RECALL RECONSIDERED

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
WALTER GANTZ
1975

 

 

IIIHII/IHIIIIII I .. w

BRAKE!
3 1293 00011 2064 u

 

hiidfigai’l State
Universuy
This is ‘0 certify that the
thesis entitled

USES OF THE MEDIA AND MEDIA IMPACT:
NEWS RECALL RECONSIDERED

presented by
".781 te r1 Gantz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Aegeain Communication

W T

O War prof§+r I 1!

Date August 21, 1975

07630

 
     

  

G‘bv
: HDA & 50”?
T 803K BINDERY WC.
LIBRARY BINDERS
. weerontjlclml

 

a

 

f I
LY”. t: i
V‘.‘ " . ' ~

 

 

. MSU

 

«’94,

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place In book drop to

 

uaaAmgs remove this checkout from
—c—. your record. FINES will
- be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beTow.
we,“
Rm; 5' I" b
. a f

‘-

’!’9l‘a‘"a\K-b ‘

u

' ‘IIV *- pf;
f... ‘

i3

vent 3- ,
T.

J"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#___I
-—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

USES OF THE MEDIA AND MEDIA IMPACT:
NEWS RECALL RECONSIDERED

BY

Walter Gantz

This study investigated the utility and validity of the
"uses and gratifications" approach to the learning of news
events from televised news programs.

Assuming media use to be goal-oriented, the uses and
gratifications approach examines the interrelationships among
antecedent conditions, gratifications sought, media exposure
patterns, content exposure, and the intended and unintended
consequences of such exposure. Falling betWeen the "hypo-
dermic" and "limited effects" models of media impact, this
approach (1) views media effects as a blend of what is on
the media and what is brought to the media by the individual,
and (2) predicts that one learns best when one is motivated
to learn.

Predictions were based on a division of the universe of
motivations into those relating to information-acquisition
and those relating to recreation/diversion. Analysis of
responses to the motivation items indicated that such a
division adequately reflected the underlying dimensions of

news viewing motivations.

Walter Gantz

Thirteen hypotheses were offered. The first hypothesis
examined the relationship between exposure to the newscast
and news recall. Hypotheses 2 through 6 centered on the
interplay between strength and type of gratifications (in-
formation-acquisition and recreation/diversion) sought and
the number of news items recalled. The remaining seven hy-
potheses focused on the interrelationships among the com-
ponents of the uses and gratifications model.

The design and procedures used in the study were based
on the supposition that viewers can assess their own reasons
for watching the national news. It also was anticipated
that respondents would have difficulty verbalizing extensive
lists of motivations and would tend to state the most obvious
and socially desirable motivations. As such, two waves of
data collection compared researcheramdrespondent-generated
motivations for watching the news. A third wave pretested
elements in the final instrument. The fourth wave included
items measuring motivation states and news recall and served
as the data base for the tests of the hypotheses. Respond-
ents were 543 adults residing in the Lansing, Michigan area.
All respondents were interviewed on the telephone.

Six of the hypotheses were confirmed. (1) Viewers
recalled more news items than non-viewers. (2) Highly in-
formation-acquisition motivated viewers recalled more news

items than those less motivated by that group of motivations.

Walter Gantz
(3) Those turning to the news primarily because of informa-
tion-acquisition motivations recalled more news items than
those turning to the news primarily because of recreation/
diversion motivations. (4) Those more frequently engaging
in discussions about national and international news turned
to televised newscasts with stronger information-acquisition
motivations than those less frequently engaging in such
discussions. (5) Those heavily dependent on television for
news about the nation and the world turned to televised news-
casts with stronger information-acquisition motivations than
their less dependent counterparts. (6) Those turning to
televised newscasts primarily for information-acquisition
gratifications more frequently engaged in newscast stimulated
information-seeking than those less motivated by information-
acquisition motivations. The remaining seven hypotheses
were not supported.
The following conclusions were offered:
(1) Televised newscasts are effective conveyors of
current events information.
(2) The uses and gratifications approach represents
a significant addition to the investigation of
media impact, although motivation variables
alone were not powerful predictors of recall.
(3) The underlying premise "one learns best when one

is motivated to learn" should be modified to "one

Walter Gantz
learns best when motivated by information-
acquisition motivations."

(4) The direct assessment of motivations repre-
sents a valid technique of measuring

motivations.

USES OF THE MEDIA AND MEDIA IMPACT:

NEWS RECALL RECONSIDERED

BY
Walter Gantz

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

1975

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan
State University, in partial fulfillment of the require-

ments for the Doctor of PhilOSOphy degree.

Oirector Q35 The31s

Guidance Committee: {:Za/]::§1{L7//l , Chairman
g/Vtx 211 7242:“

fitCtQ/l

41/2221], (”A/H I g 11 4/x, J H”

3'

 

 

ii

To my family.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am fortunate in having many people to thank for their
assistance in my growth as a doctoral student at Michigan
State. For their counsel, trust, and continual support, I
express my appreciation to all members of my guidance
committee, Drs. Joseph Woelfel, Donald Cushman, Bradley
Greenberg, Gerald Miller, and Everett Rogers. Each not only
contributed to the development of this paper but also to my
growth as a student of the communication process. Special
thanks are due to Dr. Woelfel, who as chairman of the
committee, guided my work, and Dr. Greenberg, whose interest,
availability, Openness, and purposeful demands significantly
improved the quality of this effort as well as my graduate
education. Dr. Charles Atkin functioned as the sixth, albeit
unofficial, member of my committee. His help during this
study, as well as his assistance and friendship throughout
my sojourn at this university have been invaluable.

Credit and recognition are due to my graduate student
colleagues on the fifth floor of South Kedzie Hall; the
interchange of ideas, research experiences, and support made
my graduate experience more profitable and meaningful.

Special acknowledgment of Robert Craig and David Seibold

iv

is merited. Both listened and reacted to my ideas during
those long days and late nights at the office. For their
consideration, suggestions, encouragement, and friendship,
I am deeply grateful.

During the execution of the surveys, Lynn Seeber and
James Phillips were of tremendous help. Without their
assistance in some time-consuming and some very meaningful
tasks, my job would have been much more difficult.

For her deciphering, typing, and editing skills and
efforts, Mrs. Ruth Langenbacher is thanked. Her services
were professional and friendly, despite the immediacy of
the deadlines I imposed on her.

My deepest gratitude and love are extended to my family.
My parents and sister have been supportive of me throughout
my education; their impact on my desire and ability to persue
such dreams as the "Ph.D." has been profound. My wife, Jane,
constantly offered patience, understanding, encouragement,
and love during the months when my hours at work were very
long and my patience sometimes short. To my baby daughter,
Rachel, I offer my astonishment at her ability to remember
who I was during those demanding dissertation months. To
Jane and Rachel, I can now offer my time and the promise that
I will not always either be going to, or at, "the office."

The study was funded by a research grant provided by the

National Association of Broadcasters.

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1
THE NEWS RECALL STUDIES . . . . . 2

The Empirical Findings . . . . 4

Critique of the Available Data . . 7

THE USES AND GRATIFICATIONS APPROACH TO
MEDIA EFFECTS . . . . . . . l7

Assumptions . . . . . . . 19
Focus . . . . . . . . 20
Methodology . . . . . . . 21

Findings . . . . . . . . 22

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS AND THE NATIONAL
NEWS . O C O O O I O O 2 4

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . 34

II METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 37
RATIONALE . . . . . . . . 37
Wave 1 . . . . . . . . 39
Wave 2 . . . . . . . . 50
Selection of Motivations for the
Final Test Instrument . . . 56
Wave 3 . . . . . . . . 65
Wave 4 . . . . . . 66

The Test Instrument . . . . 69
Additions; News Recall . . . 70
Modifications: (l) Combining

of Items . . . . . . 71
Modifications: (2) Measurement

of Respondent Motivations . . 73
Modifications: (3) Use of Ratio

Scale Response Categories .- . 74

vi

Chapter II (cont'd.)

Index Construction

Information-Acquisition and
Recreation/Diversion . .
Purposive Motivations . .
Dominance of Information-
Acquisition Motivations .
Perceived Informedness . .
Frequency of News

Discussions
Total Recall
Interviewers .
III RESULTS . . . . .
Preliminary Descriptive
Statistics .
Hypothesis 1 .

Hypothesis 2a—e .
Hypothesis 3a-c .
Hypothesis 4 .
Hypothesis Sa-b .
Hypothesis 6

IV SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE
SUMMARY . . . .
DISCUSSION . . .

News Recall . .
Utility of the Uses

and Grati-

fications Approach in Predicting

Recall

Validity of the Motivation
Approach to Learning .

Validity of the Direct Assignment
Method of Measuring Motivations

vii

Page
75

76
78

78
79

79

79

80

83

83

88
92-98
101-104
106
108
109
111
111
116

116

119
126

130

Table

2.1.

2.9.

2.10.

3.1.

LIST OF TABLES

Motivations for Watching the News:
Respondent Reactions to the Researcher-
Generated List . . . . . .

Respondent-Generated Reasons for Watching
the News I O O O O O O

Respondent-Generated Reasons for Watching
that Evening's Newscast . . . .

Motivations Influencing Why One Usually
Watches the News: Respondent Reactions
to the Respondent and Researcher-
Generated List . . . . . .

Correlation Between the Measurement of
Motivation on an In General and
Tonight Basis . . . . . .

Varimax Factors for Watching the News:
Wave 1 . . . . . . . .

Varimax Factors for
Watching the News: Have 2 . . .

Items Removed from Clusters in
Waves 1 and 2 . . . . . .

Final Composition of the Clusters
for Waves 1 and 2 . . . . .

Varimax Factors for Watching the
News: Wave 4 . . . . . .

Means, Standard Deviations, and

Obtained Ranges for Variables Used
in the Analyses . . . . . .

viii

Page

44

46

47

52

55

58

59

62

63

76

85

Table
3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.6.

3.8.

Comparison between Viewers and Non-
Viewers; Number of News Items Recalled

Viewer Number of Items Recalled by
Time of Interview . . . . .

Viewer Number of Items Recalled by
Day of Interview . . . . .

Correlation between Frequency of
Interpersonal Discussions about the
"National News and Strength of Infor—
mation—Acquisition Motivations for

Watching the News . . . . .

Correlations Among Perceived Knowledge
Levels Vis-a-Vis Friends and Colleagues
and Strength of Information-Acquisition
Motivations for Watching the News .

Correlations Among Dependence on Tele-
vision for News about the Nation
and the World and Strength of Infor-
mational-Acquisition Motivations .

Correlations Among Purposive Motivations

and Frequency of Viewing the National
News . . . . . . . .

ix

Page

90

91

92

101

103

105

107

2.3.

2.4.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

LIST OF FIGURES

A Uses and Gratifications Model
of Media Utilization and Impact . .

Types of Viewers of National Newcasts .

Rate of News Recall Based on Type and
Strength of News-viewing Motivations .

Variables and Hypothesized Relationships
to be Investigated . . . . .

Researcher-Generated List of Motivations
Classified by Researcher Prediction of
Factor Composition . . . . .

Respondent-Generated Reasons Accepted for
Inclusion in the Second Wave of Data
Collection Classified by Researcher
Prediction of Factor Composition . .

Motivations Accepted for Inclusion in
the Final Instrument Classified by
Researcher Prediction of Factor
Composition . . . . . . .

Wave 4: Final Composition of the
Clusters . . . . . . . .

Median Split on Information-Acquisition
Motivations . . . . . . .

Median Split on Recreation/Diversion
Motivations . . . . . . .

Breakdown of Viewers Based on Domin-
ance of Information-Acquisition
Motivations . . . . . . .

X

Page

18

26

27

36

42

48

64

77

93

95

97

Figure

3.4. Breakdown of Viewers into High and
Low Motivation Groups . . . .

4.1. Expected Levels of News Recall Based on
Viewer Type/Type and Strength of News
Viewing Motivations . . . .

4.2. Actual Levels of News Recall Based on

Viewer Type/Type and Strength of News
Viewing Motivations . . . .

xi

Page

100

127

127

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The impact of the media increasingly has been both a
source of general concern as well as an area of empirical
inquiry. While many studies and reviews prior to the 1970's
appear to demonstrate that the media speak loudly but carry
a small stick, a revitalized approach to the issue suggests
that when motivations for media usage are taken into account,
media effects are more substantial.

This dissertation represents an attempt to demonstrate
how the "uses and gratifications"perspective can serve to
uncover effects muted by the more traditional, exposure-
effects paradigm of media research. Focusing on the ability
of television news programs to impart knowledge about events
covered on the newscasts, this effort examines the relation-
ship between gratifications sought from exposure to national
newcasts and news recall.

Chapter I sets the stage for the empirical inquiry con-
ducted. In doing so, it will (1) inspect the findings of the
Small series of news recall studies, (2) outline the uses
and gratifications approach, and (3) derive hypotheses link-

ing the two, testing the utility of this paradigm for this
1

particular content area.

THE NEWS RECALL STUDIES

Viewers are a prerequisite for any direct media effect.
While some critics have echoed the call of television's fare
as a ”vast wasteland," at least several hours of each broad-
casting day are devoted to news, with millions of adults
viewing at least one of the local or national newscasts
offered. For example, in Lansing, Michigan, one can watch
almost five hours a day of local and national news on VHF
channels.1 While it is extremely doubtful that many Americans
watch the 7 a.m. national news on C.B.S., a late (e.g., 2 a.m.)
newscast presented by a local station and all of the 5, 10, 20,
and 30 minute newscasts in between, on an average weekday,
about 25% of the adult population in America watches one net-
work's national news programs. Further, 20% appear to be
"regular" news viewers, watching Cronkite, Chancellor or
Reasoner at least every other weekday2 (Robinson, 1971).

Not only do Americans watch the news on television, they
also view thegmedium as credible andthe source of most of

their_new§maboutthe world. Roper (1974) reports that 51%

-..—m:-

 

1This includes the amount of time devoted to the news
(on the hour and half hour) on the NBC program, Today. News-
casts aired at the same time were not summed together.

20n the other hand, Robinson also reports that slightly
over half of his sample failed to watch any national news-
casts during the two week sampling period.

I I‘
3. RE

’I
no " ‘
“fated!

news
am

110;

$7‘

0111

‘1“
«I:

3U:
in T

A)»
..,a

3
of those studied would believe television when faced with
conflicting reports about a news story from radio, tele-
vision, newspapers and magazines. He also reports that 65%
of his respondents cited TV as the source where they usually
get most of their news "about what's going on in the world
today," with 36% mentioning television only.3

(The utility and perceived credibility of the medium vis-

TJé-vis news ought to facilitate the transfer of news informa-

‘2'

T tion and the resultant viewer ability to recall news events
Tléired/viewed shortly beforehand. Before looking at the data
T/though, one more stimulant of the effect needs to be men-
ktioned--the program itself. Epstein (1974) suggests that
news proqrams are geared to producing a final product (the
news story) that is both understandable and interesting; he
argues that producers act on the assumption that viewers have
no prior knowledge about a subject, thus requiring stories to
be self-contained "in the sense that no outside information
on the part of the audience is necessary to understanding
them" (p. 241). Further, given the networks' concern with
"audience flows," Epstein argues that stories are reorganized

in order to stimulate viewer attention and buttress against

channel changing. Thus, producers "cast each event, which in

 

3Comparing these data with Robinson's, we find more
people saying they use television as their source of news
than actually watch any of the national news programs aired.

4
itself might not be immediately relevant to the lives of
most of those watching, into conflict stories that presum-
ably have universal appeal" (Epstein, 1974, p. 241).
In short, we have a situation in which people watch and
are dependent on a credible medium for news with the medium,
in turn, tailoring itself to meet the viewers' intellectual

and informational abilities, levels and interests.

The Empirical Findings

 

3 Only a handful of studies have examined the ability of
respondents to recollect news items transmitted to the pub-
lic on the mass media.4 While the populations studied and
methodologies utilized differ considerably, one generaliza- ///V
tion emerges from the data: most news events seen, read or
heard on the media are not recalled. What follows is an exam-
ination of the survey and experimental research conducted in

this area.

 

4Fitzsimmons and Osburn (1968) examined 5 social issues
and public affairs documentaries and found that "exposure
led to significant gains in information level, irrespective
of the tOpic" (p. 386). However, because they were concerned
primarily with the attitudinal and behavioral impact of these
programs, only a scant amount of additional information about
this cognitive effect was provided. Given this, it is impos-
sible to assess (l) the significance of the "significant" in-
formation gains, and (2) the relative amount of information
acquired when contrasted to what was presented. This lack of
data was one factor influencing the omission of the Fitzsim-
mons and Osburn study in the text of this section. Addition—
ally, this researcher perceives of news programs and
documentaries as conceptually and pragmatically distinct (e.g.,
in terms of audiences and program purposes). As such, the
cognitive effects of documentaries would only be of peripheral
interest in this analysis.

5

Nordenstreng (1970) reports that even with aided recall,
48% of those who watched an evening news program could not
remember anything about the news when interviewed on the
telephone immediately after the program. He feels that this
figure is an underestimation, with correct answers to some
of the questions a function of respondent prior awareness of
the event, the process or the participants. This finding is
of particular interest in that an overwhelming majority of
the Finnish population from which the sample was drawn (1)
follow at least one news broadcast each day, (2) watch the
most important news broadcasts with "concentration," (3)
rate television and radio news as reliable, and (4) are sat-
isfied with the news programs.

Stern (1971) and Atkin5 uncovered similar findings in
America.

Stern focused on the impact of education, interest, and
exposure patterns on recall of news items. When asked "Can
you recall any of the news stories on the network news this
evening? Do any details come to mind?", 51% of those adults
telephoned within 2 1/2 hours after the newscast could not
remember one news item. While these programs aired an aver-
age of 19.8 stories, an average of only 1.2 stories were
mentioned in the unaided recall situation. Respondents were

able to recall details of an additional 4.4 stories when

 

5Unpublished; analysis of the data is still in progress.

6
given the story headlines by the interviewers. Stern con-
cluded that the independent variables were relatively in-
effective in explaining the variance in respondent recall.

Atkin telephoned adults in Detroit, Michigan, ascertain-
ing the extent to which viewers of news broadcasts remembered,
and were influenced by what they saw on the 6-7 p.m. local
and network news broadcasts. Those who reported watching a
national newscast that evening (n=108, 29% of the sample)
were asked to list "what are some of the news stories you
can remember watching . . . what tOpics were covered in the
news program?" Viewers were able to recall an average of
1.75 news items.

Booth (1970) looked at the effects of structure, loca-
tion, and frequency of news items on recall. Respondents
were adults who reported media use and were willing to go to
the study site under the guise of discussing what they watch,
read, listen to, and think about the mass media. The 63
respondents who came to the test site were then told that
the study would focus solely on "hard" news and were asked
to describe "all of the news items you can recall hearing,
reading, or seeing today." A content analysis of the media
revealed that over the five day period, there were 2183 news
items available in the media. Of these, 297 different items I
(14%) were recalled. The number of items recalled ranged

from 1-9 with a mean of 4.7.

7

Finally, Atkin6 conducted an experiment manipulating
exposure to an "In the News" spot on a 15 minute videotape.7
Subjects were second through fifth graders in the Lansing,
Michigan area. When questioned about the topic of the stim-
ulus news item, viewers averaged 3.54 correct responses
(maximum was 6); the control group averaged 2.55. (Atkin also
tested the effects of repeated exposure to the news item on

knowledge; those who saw the stimulus twice averaged 3.90).

Critique of the Available Data

 

While the results appear to be fairly consistent, in-
terpretation of this collection of data is tempered by meth-
odological differences among the studies as well as failures
to control potentially significant intervening variables.
These discrepancies and deficiencies are enumerated below.

(1) Interaction between question format and recall.

To what extent does the format of the interview schedule stim-
ulate memory of the newscast? This researcher suspects that
when reSpondents are provided with a specific frame of refer-
ence (e.g., Where did President Ford travel to today?), they

will recall more news items than when told "Tell me what was

 

6Unpublished; analysis of the data is still in prog-
ress. Atkin hypothesized that repetition will increase knowl-
edge acquisition in response to exposure to newscasts.

7”In the News" is a specially designed news broadcast
for child audiences aired on CBS for two minutes every half-
hour on Saturday mornings.

8

on the news tonight." The Stern data provide support for
this hypothesis; respondents said that they remembered an
additional 8.7 news stories when the interviewer read a
list of the events covered on that evening's newscast.

(2) Interaction between assessment of recall and re—
call. How much information must a respondent provide in
order to be evaluated as having successfully recalled a news
item? The stringency of the criteria used varied across the
studies examined. In the Booth study, news items reported
by the respondents were compared with those items monitored
by the researchers. Only if the respondent report correspond-
ed on at least two of the following information areas was
the report considered recall: (1) role or name identification
of the participants involved, (2) the place where the event
occurred, (3) the action that took place, and (4) the outcome-
of the event. Somewhat less stringent is Atkin's written in-
struction to his survey interviewers: "PROBE: MAKE SURE THEY
AREN'T FAKING." This was operationalized as requiring respond-
ents to provide at least some specificity about an event or
person they reported to have seen on the program—~e.g., saying
that there was a story about Vietnam or President Ford without
going into any details would not be considered recall. In
Atkin's experiment with children, subjects only had to circle
what they perceived was the correct answer of the three
choices provided. While this method probably inflated the

scores, it is doubtful that youngsters 8 years old would be

9
able to sufficiently verbalize what they saw and retained
without any prompting to meet the criteria specified by others
such as Booth.

Stern's study provides a data base for the analysis of
this interaction. Half of the news items presented were "re-
called" when recall was defined as minimally involving respon-
dent acknowledgment of item headlines provided by the inter-
viewers. However, when defined as respondent ability to
provide details to item headlines, recall rates dropped from
9.9 items recalled to 5.5.

(3) Interaction between type of news event and recall.
Are hard news, soft news and commentaries perceived as inter-
changeable in value or do people differentially retain and
recall these items? For his experimental stimulus, Atkin
selected an "In the News" segment which focused on the strug-
gle between then President Nixon and Congress over the White
House tapes and transcripts--a political, "hard" news item.
Booth's analysis also focused on hard news; at the study site,
respondents were told that the study would exclude "all
garden, sports and weather news" items. While Atkin and
Gantz' survey data (1974) yielded almost identical partial
correlations between a child's exposure to "In the News"
programs and knowledge of political and "pepular" news, Stern
found that recall rates ranged from 64% for stories about the
weather to 34% for the commentaries offered by Eric Severaid

and Harry Reasoner, with most national and international

10

news hovering at 50%.

(4) Interaction between retention curves and recall.
To what extent is the lack of recall a function of the amount
of time between the exposure and recall periods? Booth made
no attempt to control for this factor even though his respon-
dents might have just read a newspaper on the way to the test
site or not read/seen/heard the news for a number of hours.
While Nordenstreng, Stern and Atkin interviewed respondents
"immediately" after a news program, (1) most respondents were
not reached as soon as the news program ended and (2) even
for those who were reached within a short period of time, there
was a minimum of 30 minutes--and 10 to 20 other news items--
between their viewing of the first news item and the telephone
interviews. Stern's respondents were contacted up to 2 1/2
hours after the newscast. While Stern found no changes in
recall rates over time (average rates of recall for each suc-
ceeding half hour period were 51%, 50%, 48%, 51% and 50%),
Atkin's survey data indicated that the amount of time between
newscast and interview was a variable influencing recall:
whereas those interviewed within one hour after the newscast
recalled an average of 1.82 items, those interviewed between
one and two hours after the program only were able to recall
an average of 1.59 items.

(5) Interaction between repeated exposure and recall.
To what extent does prior and/or subsequent exposure to a

news item influence one's ability to recall the item? As

11
stated earlier, children exposed to Atkin's experimental
"In the News" segment twice fared better on the test items
than those who saw the stimulus once. While most adults are
unlikely to encounter such complete redundancy (unless recall
was measured after the late evening newscasts), considerable
overlap is possible. The Atkin, Booth, and Nordenstreng sur-
veys made no mention of controlling for this. Stern did, and
found those exposed to early evening newspapers scored mar-
ginally higher on the recall items.

(6) Interaction between attention and recall. To what
{extent are the recall scores deflated because of respondent
inability or unwillingness to pay close attention to the
newscasts? The early evening news programs are often come
peting for the viewer's attention with all of the distrac-
tions of the home environment-~spouse, children, dinner and
the paper. With children not in bed, the spouse interested
in a report of the day's activities, and food being passed
around the table, this researcher suspects that many are un-
able to be as fully attentive to these news programs as they
would like to be, or at least as attentive as they are to
prime time programs when the paper has been read, food di-
gested, the spouse satisfied with the day's report, and the
kids either in bed or absorbed in their own activities.

Four studies provide data related to this issue. All
indicate a positive relationship between attentiveness to

the newscast and number of news items recalled.

12
(a) In an unpublished experiment conducted by this re-
searcher, subjects viewed a local 6 p.m. news broadcast
either in a classroom or at home. Those who viewed the
newscast in the controlled classroom environment re-
called an average of 4.7 of the 10 items under consider-
ation: home viewers averaged 2.8. While the number of
subjects in each cell was small, the results were in the
hypothesized direction.
(b) When asked whether they were able to watch all, most,
or just some of the stories on the national news program
they viewed that evening, only 27% of Atkin's respon-
dents reported that they were able to watch all of the
stories; 40% said they only were able to watch some. The
relationship between this Operationalization of attention
and recall was positive. Those who watched "some" of the
news stories recalled an average of 1.21 items; for those
who watched "most" and "all" of the stories, the mean
rates of recall were 1.91 and 2.31 respectively.
(c) In Atkin's experiment, subjects were asked how much
of the story at the end of the cartoon they watched.
Children who reported low levels of attention to the
story were significantly less knowledgeable about Nixon's
transcripts than those who paid greater attention to the
segment.
(d) Finally, Stern looked at the differences in recall

between those who watched the entire newscast without

13

disruptions, those who watched the entire newscast with

some disruptions, and those who watched part of the pro-

gram.with major disruptions. Whereas the former two
groups were able to recall slightly under 60% of all the
stories (using Stern's lenient criterion of recall),
only one out of every three stories was recalled by
those who reported major interruptions during the pro-
gram. (However, those data are somewhat misleading in
that the group which recalled only 36% of the stories
aired, by definition, did not see all of the stories.

Thus, their low recall rate appears to be an artifact of

the Operationalization of the dependent variable.)

(7) Interaction between reasons for reading/viewing/
hearing the news and recall. To what extent is this cognitive
effect mediated by why one turns to the news? Atkin asked his
respondents why they watched the national news programs and
then divided his sample into those who stated that they
watched for information or non-information—acquisition rea—
sons. Those who watched for information-acquisition recalled
more news items although the difference was not significant
(mean recall rates were 1.78 and 1.64 respectively). How-
ever, Berelson (1949) demonstrated that information-acquisi-
tion is perceived as a socially desirable response and hence
used by a number of respondents for whom the news serves
other functions. Had Atkin's interviewers probed and tapped

these less frequently mentioned reasons, differences between

 

14
the groups might have been more substantial.

While Stern was not prepared to conclude that motives
for watching the news influenced recall rates, he did find
sizeable differences between those who watched the news to
"keep informed" and those who watched for relaxation; the
former recalled an average of 57% of the items while the
latter recalled only 42%.

Other researchers did not examine the relationship be-
tween reasons for viewing and recall. However, they did dis-
cuss the role that television news appears to serve for the
peOple studied. Allen (1968) ascertained patterns of media
and effects of the mass mediafor ghetto residents in Pittsburgh.
He suggested that his respondents fared poorly on current af-
fairs items despite their regular news viewing habits because
they did not view the news for information acquisition; in-
stead, they viewed the news because it was on. As one respon-
dent related, "We just watch whatever they want to show us"
(p. 526). Nordenstreng lamented that "for many Finns, fol—
lowing the news is a mere ritual, a way of dividing up the
daily rhythm. . . "(p. 7).

(8) Lack of a theoretical perspective accounting for the
results. Why is it that many people can't recall any news
items? Why is it that some people recall more items than
others? The research efforts just discussed provide us with
a base of descriptive data. If the data are valid and gener-

alizable, predictions to other samples and populations on an

15
aggregate level are possible. However, on an individual
level, the data have much less predictive utility because
no perspective has been offered to account for the variance
in recall scores. While Nordenstreng and Allen offered
post hoc analyses and Stern examined some potentially sig—
nificant intervening variables, the research in this area
seems to be empirically rather than theoretically generated.

One could, for instance, (1) focus on demographic vari-
ables and see if the predicted cognitive effects hold for
certain subgroups within the population, (2) control situ-
ational variables and determine if information is trans-
mitted under ideal viewing conditions, (3) control for at—
tention and ascertain differences in recall based on
differential attentiveness, or (4) examine interest in the
news and look at the recall rates for those "interested"
and "not interested." In short, one could focus on demo-
graphic, situational, exposure, and motivation variables in
an attempt to account for the findings.

Locator variables can predict and describe but in and
of themselves, they cannot explain. Knowing that the edu-
cated, for example, pick up more information might have some
practical, policy implications but it does not provide theo-

rists with any rationale as to why the information provided is

16
differentially recalled.8 Even with these predictors, we
still would need to find out what it is about these groups
(e.g., differential learning abilities) that makes them re-
act in distinctly different patterns than others.

Given the amount of activity in the home during the
early evening hours, it seems plausible that viewers are too
busy attending to other matters to come away with much infor-
mation about the day's events. Thus, researchers might try
to ascertain the number of activities competing with the pro-
gram and then partial them out in subsequent correlational
analyses. While this approach is reasonable, the Stern data
indicate that this would be less than adequate as the primary
explanation for the no effects finding. Gantz' unpublished
data further provide support for this position; even when
viewing the newscast under conditions unlikely to be matched
in any environment outside of an experiment room, subjects
were unable to provide the correct answers to over 50% of
the questions.

Attention is seen as another determinant of retention
and recall. However, this researcher is still left wondering
what are the more deeply rooted explanations and/or ante-

cedent conditions which lead to the amount of attentiveness

 

8While Hazard [1962] found education to be a predictor
of information gains from experimental television newscasts,
Stern reported no significant differences in recall based on
education.

17
reported. (e.g., Why is it that some are attentive to the
news and others aren't?)

When we turn to motivations, we are confronted with an
antecedent of the exposure-effect relationship. Here, we
have a predictor and explanation of the process. Consequent-
ly, this researcher recommends an approach to media effects
that emphasizes motivations. What follows is one such

approach.

THE USES AND GRATIFICATIONS APPROACH TO MEDIA EFFECTS9

One way of describing the uses and gratifications model
of media effects is to view it in relation to two other per-
spectives. On one hand, the hypodermic model of the media
assumes an all-powerful media and a vulnerable, spongelike,
absorbent audience. From this stance, there is only one
step in the flow of information and influence--from the media
to the user--with the resultant changes in the viewers con-
sistent with the intentions of the source. The other position
is summarized by Klapper (1960) and represented by Bauer's
"obstinate audience" (Bauer, 1964). Here the effects of the
media are seen as limited by an extremely active and protec-

tive viewer who selectively exposes, perceives and retains

 

9For the purposes of this dissertation, uses are defined
as reasons why one turns to a content area, a medium or the
media (or, stated in another way, what one hopes to get from
the content area . . .); gratifications or functions are seen
as consequences of usage.

 

 

 

18
information consistent with his or her predispositions. In
short, one approach posits that "content equals effect," the
other that "audience intention equals effect." Falling in
between these polar viewpoints (but toward the Klapper and
Bauer position) is the uses and gratifications model; ef-
fects are seen as a blend of what is on the media and what is
brought to the media by the individual. Thus, the media are
perceived as effective, although the type and amount of ef-
fect is seen as varying across viewers in relation to rea—
sons for their exposure. Figure1.lpresents a more complete

picture of the perspective taken by this approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Antecedent + Gratifi- + Patterns + Media effects:

conditions cations of gratifications
sought exposure obtained, other

consequences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.1. A Uses and Gratifications Model
of Media Utilization and Impact
Whether the dependent variable/effect be recall, atti-
tudes toward violence or sex role satisfaction, all involve
some aspect of learning. The uses and gratifications ap-
proach tackles the question "Under what conditions does one
best learn?" and posits that one best learns when one actively

seeks some particular information.10 Thus, underlying the

 

10This does not rule out incidental learning. For ex-
ample, Stern found that those who turned to the news in order
to relax still were able to recall (with aid) 41.9% of the
items broadcast. The issue is not an "all or nothing"

19

uses and gratifications position is the motivational approach
to learning. While there are a number of theories of learn-
ing (e.g. the drive-reduction model which seems to fit this
perspective well), it has been argued (e.g., Anderson [1959])
that all assume motivations to be an essential component in
the learning process.11

As with any other corpus of research literature, the
uses and gratifications approach (1) makes certain crucial
assumptions about the process studied, (2) focuses on partic-
ular aspects of it, (3) utilizes alternative methodologies,
and (4) has data testing the validity of the assumptions and

value of the approach.

Assumptions

 

(1) The audience is conceived of as active, with much
mass media use goal-oriented. Whether usage is premeditated
on the conscious level or reflective of a relatively uncon-
scious planning process, researchersin this area View the

aggiencemasdpgrposive_users of the media, turning to.a

 

one. Rather, the question revolves around the amount of in—
formation acquired. The uses and gratifications approach
posits that those who turn to the media to learn ought to
learn more than those seeking other gratifications.

11While other traditions in the mass media research
area have not focused on the impact of motivations on knowl-
edge, there have been both theoretical and empirical linkages
(e.g., Greenberg, Brinton and Farr [1965], Fitzsimmons and
Osburn [1969], Johnson [1973], and Genova [1974]) between
interest and knowledge of public affairs. This researcher
sees 1nterest and motivations as closely related.

20
' particular medium or content area for satisfaction of certain
needs or desires.

(2) Media and program contributions to audience satis-
factions are multifunctional. There is no single, specific
function that any program or medium serves; needs filled and
gratifications sought and obtained are dependent on the re-
spondent. For example, Greenberg (1974) uncovered 7 factors
emerging as reasons why children watch television: for learn-
ing, as a habit, for arousal, for companionship, to relax, to
forget, and to pass time. Blumler and McQuail (1970) found
four clusters of reasons why respondents watched one particu-
1ar type of program--party election broadcasts: to help to
strengthen party allegience, help in the voting decision,
find out who will probably win the election, and to become
involved in the excitment of the election races.

Other assumptions about the process have been offered--
e.g., the mass media serve as a functional alternative for
the satisfaction of needs (Rosengren and Windahl, 1972).
However, only the two assumptions mentioned above are seen as
immediately relevant to the question of recall; the uses and
gratifications approach would have no predictive utility un-

less viewers purposively turned to the news for the satisfac-

 

tion of various needs.

Focus
As Figure 1.1 indicated (p. 18), this approach encom-

passes antecedents as well as consequents of viewing. While

21
theorists such as Rosengren (1974) have discussed the rela-
tionships among all of the components in this process, most
of the research has started from, and emphasized, different
stages. Thus, while some researchers (e.g., Katz and Foulkes
[1962], McLeod, Ward and Tancill [1965-66], Blumler, Brown
and McQuail [1970]) have focused on social origins of needs
and related them to media use patterns, others (e.g., Herzog
[1944], Lasswell [1948], Berelson [1949], Schramm, Lyle and
Parker [1961], McQuail, Blumler and Brown [1972], Robinson
[1972], Katz, Gurevitch and Haas [1973], and Greenberg [1974])
have looked at and developed typologies of content/media

functions, or consequences of media usage.

Methodology

 

A third assumption made by some researchers in this area
deals with the ability of individual audience members to
grasp and transmit the reasons why they turn to the media.

It is assumed that "people are sufficiently self-aware to be
able to report their interests and motives in particular
cases, or at least to recognize them when confronted with
them in an intelligible and familiar verbal formation" (Katz,
Blumler and Gurevitch, 1974, p. 22). For those who take this
position, respondents are questioned directly about their
perceived wants and the media or programs that best satisfy
those needs. Greenberg's approach (1974) illustrates this

method: respondents were given a list of reasons "that other

22

people gave us for watching TV":uui asked to mark down how much
each of those reasons (originally generated by a similar
sample of respondents) was like the respondent.

Not every researcher in the area has been willing to
make that assumption. On the grounds that sources of bias in
the self-report might mitigate the validity of the lists gen:
erated, Kline, Miller, and Morrison (1974)used indirectmeas-
~n£g§1in1§§33£33ifliflgln§§§“States. Instead of directly asking
respondents what uses they made of the media, these researchers
measured respondents' perceived information congruence with
their peers about family planning and predicted that "persons
in these different conditions of congruency or incongruency
would tend to perceive messages in the mass media differently
and to obtain different types of information therefrom"
(p. 116).12 Thus, while this data collection approach would
involve measures tapping media use patterns and the dependent
variable (effect) under consideration, the researcher would
have to infer reasons for media usage on the basis of other

data gathered in the questionnaire schedule.

Findings
Some of the data gathered deals with confirmation of the

assumptions made in this approach. For example, Peled and

 

12They also based their predictions on respondent bio-
logical and chronological maturation; these were seen as
indirect measures of need states.

o 1m.

«\N

23

Katz' conclusion (1974) that Israelis sought from the media
relief from anxiety and BEES the media for participation in
national grief supports the assumption that the media are
used by an active, goal-oriented public. The same study also
demonstrates that gratifications (both type and amount) were
differentially distributed across Israelis who used the media
during the Six Days War, thus providing evidence of the valid-
ity of the second assumption. Other research in the area is
more descriptive, providing empirically derived lists of
motivations for use of a medium and functions the media serve.

Given the validation of assumptions and development of
typologies of media-related needs and functions, what is of
concern now, from an empirical point of view, is the testing
of the mode1--a;e_media_eff§gtsfimediatedlbyaaudiencenuseswof
thelmedia?__The—avaiiab1erevidencewappears~to:supportwthis
premise. For example, McLeod, Becker and Byrnes (1974) demon-
strated that respondents who read political news in order to
make voting decisions or keep abreast of campaign activities
were less likely to have their public agenda coincide with the
agenda set down by their newspaper than were those not simi-
larly motivated. In that study, the gratifications sought
from the media served to blunt media content effects. In
ianother study, McLeod and Becker (1974) concluded that the
ireasons why political materials were used (e.g., "to judge

Twhat political leaders are like") and avoided ("because I'm

N

not interested in politics") accounted for more of the variance

"ao-

24

in political effects such as campaign issue accuracy and
interest than did exposure variables. Finally, Atkin and
Heald (1975) found the correlations between exposure to polit-
ical advertisements and knowledge of the candidates was
stronger for those respondents who reported viewing the spot
announcements for information than for those who viewed the
ads because the ads were on or entertaining.

In short, the uses and gratifications approach appears
to be a viable paradigm for the examination of effects in
that (1) it appears to meet its assumptions, and (2) its

basic premise has some empirical support.

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS AND THE NATIONAL NEWS

When applied to news programming, the uses and gratifi-
cations approach would posit that recall is a function of the
gratifications sought from exposure to the newscast; those
using the program for certain purposes will recall more news
items than those viewing for others.

Data by Berelson (1949), Cannell and Sharp (1958),
Kimball (1959), Mindak and Hursh (1965), Schramm (1965),
Stern (1971),Peled and Katz (1974) and Atkin (in progress)
indicate that there are a variety of reasons why people use
information content on the media. In examining the relation-
ship between motivations for watching the news and news re-
call, the researcher is confronted with the following issue:

Should the focus be on individual reasons for news viewing or

:2 gr

oJYQI

DIDU‘
.

di

'31-
~11

25

on groups of similar motivations? In the dual interest of

parsimony and predictive utility, this researcher chose to

move up a level of abstraction and focus on the dimensions

underlying larger subsets of reasons why people watch tele-
vision newscasts. Given this position, a second issue had

to be faced: What set of clusters of motivations should be
used in the predictions to be empirically tested?

Schramm, Lyle and Parker (1961), Stephenson (1967), and
Atkin (in progress) dichotomized media uses into fantasy or
reality, work or play,.and information or non-information
motivations. Given (1) the premise underlying the motiva-
tional approach to learning, (2) the focus on information
gain as the criterion variable, and (3) the_u§e~gf informa-
etionMggntentflggfltheflmedia.for.recreation and diversion as
Ewellaagginfggmgtion purposes, this researcher decided to
divide the universe of viewer motivations into those relat-
ing to information-acquisition and those relating to recrea-
tion/diversion. With the former set of motivations, the
user is seen as interested in the content for information
storage purposes; with the latter, the user is seen as
interested in the content only as it serves to pleasantly
distract and refresh the user from his or her tasks at hand.
Thus, the first cluster of reasons is akin to Atkin's "infor-
mation" conceptualization/terminology. However, unlike
Atkin, whose second cluster implies non-purposive viewing

behaviors, the second cluster in this category scheme

26
acknowledges that non-information-acquisition motivations
are equally valid reasons for viewing the news (if not
equally predictive determinants of exposure).

The dichotomy created does not rule out the coexistence
of these two dimensions of motivations. It also does not
negate the possibility of neither being an important influ-
ence on one's viewing of the news--some viewing is haphazard
and unmotivated (e.g., "we have confronted the image of the
beery, house-slippered casual viewer of television with the
notion of a more 'active' audience--knowing that both images
are true," [Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch, 1974, p. 301).

Thus, we have four types of viewers as Figure 1.2 indicates.

 

 

 

RECREATION/DIVERSION
HI ’ LO
INFORMATION- HI 1 the information/ the information
ACQUISITION recreation seeker seeker
LO I the recreation the casual
T seeker viewer T
I J

 

 

Figure 1.2. Types of Viewers of National Newcasts

Which type of viewer will recall the most news? Operat-
ing under the principle that one learns best when one is
motivated to learn, strength of information-acquisition moti-
vations ought to be the best predictor of recall. Given
this, the information and the information/recreation seekers

will recall more than those seeking only recreation or

5v
unlu

LL

27
viewing with no particular information-acquisition or recrea-
tion/diversion purpose in mind. Going a step further, the
information seeker will recall more than the information/rec-
reation seeker. This proposition is based on the belief that
the former will be satisfied only if information is acquired,
whereas the gratification of the latter's needs is not solely
dependent on the information content of the newscast or the
amount of news acquired.

The recreation seeker and the casual viewer will recall
more than non-viewers. One serendipitous outcome of their
viewing is the "incidental learning" of some news items. How-
ever, the creation seeker, viewing the program in order to ob-
tain some gratifications, ought to be somewhat more attentive
to the newscast than the casual viewer. Hence, the recreation
seeker should fare better on recall tests.

Four levels of viewer recall have been predicted.

Figure 1.3 summarizes these predictions.

 

 

RECREATION/DIVERSION
HI L0
INFORMATION-ACQUISITION HI 2 1
L0 3 4

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.3. Rate of News Recall Based on Type and
Strength of News-viewing Motivations*

*
1 represents greatest recall

The first six hypotheses, derived from the perspective
just offered, focus on levels of news recall. Hypothesis 1

deals with the relationship between exposure to the newscast

nib:
U

 

IAl-'a

:v‘ an

28

and news recall. Hypotheses 2a through 2e center on the

interplay between strength and type of gratifications

sought and news recall.

1.

H2a:

2b:

2c:

2d:

2e:

Newscast viewers will recall more news items
than non-viewers.

The greater the strength of information-
acquisition motivations for viewing the
news, the greater the number of news items
recalled.

The greater the strength of recreation/
diversion motivations for viewing the news,
the greater the number of news items
recalled.

Strength of information-acquisition motiva-
tions for viewing national newscasts is a
better predictor/will account for more vari-
ance in news recall than strength of
recreation/diversion motivations.

The greater the dominance of information-
acquisition motivations for viewing the
news, the greater the number of news items
recalled.

Viewers motivated by information-acquisition
and/or recreation/diversion motivations will
recall more news items than viewers not

motivated by either dimension of motivations.

In Hypothesis 2d, the term dominance is equated with

 

exclusivity; the greater the dominance of information-acqui-

sition motivations for viewing the news, the greater the

extent to which an individual turns to the news exclusively

because of those motivations. This is in contrast with

strength, a term focusing on importance without implying ex-

clusivity.

In addition to testing the relationship between gratifi—

cations sought and news recall, the research conducted

29

provided a testing ground for empirical examinations of (l)
the interrelationships among the other elements in the uses
and gratifications model, and (2) the validity of the
direct assessment of motivations. The sequential ordering
of the remaining hypotheses is based on the sequence of
relationships suggested by the model. Thus, we turn first
to the interdependence on antecedent conditions and gratifi-
cations sought from exposure to national newscasts.

Gratifications sought from the news are viewed as re-
flective of, and dependent on, environmental forces impinging
on the individual as well as the individual's cognitive make-
up and patterns of news consumption. Illustrative of these
influences are the individual's (1) communication environment
(e.g., amount of interpersonal discussions about news events),
(2) perceived level of knowledge vis-a-vis friends and col-
leagues about national and world news events, and (3) depend-
ence on television newscasts for information about national
and world events. While there are undoubtedly a host of
other antecedents, these were selected in that they can also

function as indirect measures of internal need states.13

 

13Given the question about the validity and utility of
the direct measurement of respondent motivations, an examin-
ation of the relationship between these antecedents and re-
spondent motivations serves two functions. First, measurement
of the correlation between these two sets of variables can be
viewed as a test of the construct validity of motivations as-
sessed using direct measurement techniques. If the correla-
tions were high, then one is more certain of the validity of
the direct measurement approach. Second, the measures can be

percei
be vie
If an

iiscu:

senal

EIQH

f‘alf

Pitt
Mac

the

30

Gratifications are conceptualized as satisfiers of
needs; when pe0ple turn to the media seeking particular
gratifications, they are searching for fulfillment of those
perceived need states. Each of these three antecedents can
be viewed in relation to the perceived needs of an individual.
If an individual's communication environment includes regular
discussion of news events or in some other way demands per-
sonal knowledge about the news, it is predicted that the
individual will perceive a need for information about the news
and hence, when turning to the news, seek the acquisition of
information. Similarly, those who perceive themselves as
uninformed when contrasted with friends or colleagues ought
to be more interested in the content of the newscast than
those who perceive themselves as (relatively) informed.
Finally, those who get most or all of their news about the
nation and the world from television ought to turn to the
national newscasts because of strong information-acquisition
needs. Those making more extensive use of other news sources
ought to be less motivated by the need to acquire information
from televised news-~a greater proportion of those needs are

fulfilled elsewhere.

 

pitted against each other in a multiple regression equation
predicting recall. Here, if the initial correlations are
high, this test should suggest which approach is more useful
in predicting media effects. If the correlations were low,
the results of the regression equation should also point to
the more valid indicator of the motivation construct.

31

In all three cases, it is predicted that antecedents
affect internal need states and the gratifications sought
from this particular program/content area. The following
hypotheses are offered for testing the suggested positive
relationship between strength of perceived information needs
and strength of information-acquisition motivations:

H3a: The greater the frequency of interpersonal
discussions about national and international
news, the greater the strength of informa-
tion-acquisition motivations for watching
the national news.

:The less the perceived knowledge vis-a-vis
friends and colleagues about national and

world news, the greater the strength of in-
formation-acquisition motivations for watch-
ing the national news.

3b:

H3c: The greater the dependence on televised news
for information about the nation and the
world, the greater the strength of informa-
tion-acquisition motivations for viewing the
national news.

The next group of hypotheses focuses on the relation-
ship between gratifications sought from the national news
and the frequency and quality of exposure to these newscasts.
We will examine frequency of exposure first.

The crucial assumption underlying the uses and grati-
fications model is that continued exposure to a particular
medium/content area is a deliberate process; it represents
non—random behaviors based on personal needs that are being
fulfilled. "Learning theory's fundamental law of effect

[posits] that repetition does not stamp in a response unless

there is reinforcement; without reinforcement, repeated

m

ea

6.

CE

32

exposure would have the Opposite effect of extinguishing
the habit" (McGuire, 1974, pp. 168-9). Extending this
position suggests that strength of purposive motivations
is directly related to frequency of viewing.14

Quality of exposure can be divided into two components:
(1) attentiveness to the newscast, and (2) amount of distrac-
tions from viewing the newscast. For these two quality of
exposure components, information-acquisition and recreation/
diversion functions are not expected to have equal impact.
Instead, it is anticipated that those watching the news for
information-acquisition purposes (1) will be more attentive
to the newscast, and (2) be less likely to succumb to the
numerous distractions confronting the viewer during this
early evening- and often supper-hour. The rationale for
this prediction is similar to the one offered for the recall
hypotheses. Those who view the news for recreation/diver-
sknlfunctions can have those needs fulfilled without paying
careful attention to every news item, reporter, or newsmaker.
Further, other objects, peOple, and activities surrounding
the viewer offer competing (and perhaps less demanding)

vehicles for similar gratifications. Given this, the casual

 

14The term "purposive" was purposely selected; while
recreation-diversion functions are conceptually distinct
from information-acquisition functions, they both represent
intentions, or gratifications sought prior to exposure.
When held constant qualitatively, the prediction is that
both categories of reasons will lead to equal frequencies
of exposure.

 

33
viewer, the recreation-seeker, and to some extent, the
information/recreation seeker are likely to stray from the
news broadcast. On the other hand, many news items are
complex and interrelated, requiring a substantial amount of
concentration on behalf of the viewer. Given the single
important motivation of the information-seeker, it is
assumed that (s)he is compelled to be more attentive to the
news in order to satisfy this dominant motivation. Moreover,
there are no equally attractive alternatives to distract
this viewer during the newscast--at best, the day's news-
paper reports about the morning news events.
Stated as hypotheses, this researcher posits the
following relationships:
H4: The stronger the purposive motivations for
v1eW1ng the nat1onal news, the more frequent
the viewing of the national news.
HSa: The greater the dominance of information-
acquis1tion reasons for v1ew1ng the news, the

greater the attentiveness to the newscast.

H The greater the dominance of information-
acquisition reasons for viewing the news, the

fewer the number of distractions from the news.

5b:

The final hypothesis to be tested relates gratifications
sought to a behavioral effect of the media, the stimulation
of information-seeking. While information-seeking is often
thought of as a determinant of media news exposure (e.g.,
Atkin [1972, 1973]) it also can be seen as a consequence of
such exposure; news viewing can stimulate interest in addi-

tional information about an item aired on the news. While

34

all news viewers can be so stimulated, it is hypothesized
that those who are primarily motivated to watch the news
for information-acquisition purposes will be most likely to
use the newscast as a springboard in the acquisition of
additional knowledge. Thus:
H6: The greater the dominance of information-

acquisition mot1vat1ons for watching the

news, the more frequent the rate of news-

cast stimulated information-seeking be-

haviors.

SUMMARY
Data from a small series of studies tapping the recall

of television news indicates that television newscasts are
relatively unsuccessful in imparting significant amounts of
information to the public. These results appear to be con-
sistent with the "limited effects" model of the mass media.
However, it was argued that (l) methodological differences
across the studies made one hesitant to generalize from the
findings, and (2) no theoretical perspective had been offered
to account for either the mean rate of recall or its vari-
ance. The uses and gratifications approach to media effects
was introduced, its position being that media effects are
modified by viewer motivations for exposure. This approach,
demonstrated as meeting its assumptions and having predic-
tive utility, was suggested as a fruitful method of account-
ing for the rates of recall ascertained. Finally, hypotheses

were offered testing the utility of this paradigm for this

A 9
km»

35
particular content area. The relationships in the model to

be investigated are presented in Figure 1.4.

36

 

 

 

m3oc anc0wumcuoucw can Hmcoflumc usonm mcofimmsomwo mo wocmsooum u flax
mosmmoaaoo can mocoflum mH>IMImH> mao>oa omooa3ocx om>flmouom u oax
pauos one new coflumc map usoom mzms How coflmw>oamu so mocoocomoo u mx
mcofium>wuoe
Acoflmuo>flo\coflummuoou pom cofluflmwstMIcoHumEHOMCHV o>flmomusm mo numcmuum u mx
mcowum>wuoe cofluflmflooUMIcofluoEuomca mo mocmcwEoo u hx
mcoHum>fluoE cowuwmfisoUMIcoHumEu0mcH mo numcouum n ox
mcoflum>fluoe sonHo>flo\coHumonoon mo numcmuum u mx
ousmomxm mo mocosooum u «x
Amcowuomnumwo ocm mmocm>wucmupmv onsmomxm mo muHHmso u mx
mcwxommIGOAHmEHOMGA n mx
ooummwumo>cH Hamoou m3o: u x
on on mmflnmcoHumamm omNflmmnuomwm paw mmaomaum> .v.a madman
mx
x
Rx
N .
X r»)
lle
H T x T.
x
\$\
T.» m

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

This chapter will focus on the methodology used in the
study, beginning with a rationale for the multiple data col-
lection approach taken and then proceeding with a description
of the instrumentation and administration of each of the sur-
veys conducted. Subsequent to that, we will discuss the inter-

viewers used in the study.

RATIONALE

Motivations are the focal point of the uses and gratifi-
cations paradigm. However, while this concept is common to
theoretical and empirical treatises in this area, there is a
schism in the methodology employed and designs utilized to
measure and relate it to other variables. This split is based
on the evaluation of respondent abilities to accurately as-
sess their own internal motivation states. Researchers un-
willing to make this assumption use indirect measures of
viewer/respondent motivations; those willing to assume such
capabilities utilize direct measures.

For those who assume that viewers can assess their own

motives, a second critical decision must be made. Here, the
37

38
issue revolves around how the list of motivations should be
generated. There are three options available. The researcher
can (1) generate the motivations him/herself, (2) rely on re-
spondents to generate the motivations, or (3) construct a
list of motivations based on self and respondent contributions.

Those choosing the first route only need one stage of
data collection to examine the relationships they're interested
in. However, those relying on self-generated lists of moti-
vations face two risks. The first involves having a list that
does not include some 3 number of motivations which lead to
respondent exposure patterns. The second vulnerable point in
this approach rests in the researcher's (in)ability to couch
the motivations he or she generatesixllanguage compatible with
respondent linguistic codes and patterns..

Those who pursue either of the remaining options are
forced to engage in at least two stages of data collection--
the first to generate the reasons and the second to incorpo-
rate them in the testing instrument. Researchers dependent
on respondent generated motivations do not have to be con-
cerned with the wording of the motivation items. However,
because the task demanded of the respondents is a difficult
one (e.g., "We'd like you to think for a minute and then tell
us what are the reasons why you watch these national news
programs."), researchers taking this approach run the risk
of ending up with a list that is incomplete. Option 3 re-

quires the most amount of work. Here, the researcher not only

39

contacts viewers and asks them in both open-and close-ended
fashion why they expose themselves to a particular medium or
program but also empirically assessesvdijxa second sample, in
close-ended fashion, the applicability of the combined re-
searcher and respondent generated list of motivations. While
this approach requires an additional amount of researcher
time and energies, it minimizes the risks of an incomplete
and/or unrecognizable (from the respondent's perspective) set
of motivations.

The design and procedures used in this study are based
on the supposition that viewers can deal with the reasons
why they, in this case, watch the national news. It is antici-
pated that respondents will have some difficulty verbalizing
lists of motivations and will tend to state the most obvious
and socially desirable "for information" motivation. As such,
the final testing instrument contains a list of motivations
that were researcher and respondent generated in the first
wave of data collection and then assessed in the second wave

by a different sample of respondents.

Wave 1

The first wave of data collection served to (l) deve10p
a comprehensive list of reasons why people watch the early
evening national news, and (2) check on the adequacy of the
test instrument. (See Appendix A for a copy of the instru-

ment used in each wave of data collection.)

40

Because items on this questionnaire did not vary from
day to day, interviewers were given large stacks of surveys,
long lists of telephone numbers, and told that they could
call respondents from their own homes, dormitory rooms, or
offices in this department. None of the interviewers opted
to conduct their interviews in department offices.

Interviewers were instructed to interview respondents
who were at least 18 years old; even those who reported that
they never watched the national news were asked a few ques—
tions. This researcher was concerned with attaining as close
to a 50:50 male-female respondent ratio as possible. Assum-
ing that more females would answer the telephone than males,
the following directions were given to all interviewers:

Ask to speak to (l) the man, or (2) the woman of

the house. Do this alternatively. However,

should you get four women in a row, ask for four

men in a row after that.
When the desired interviewee was not available, the person
who answered the telephone was requested to serve as inter-
viewee and made to feel that his or her answers were just as
important to us as those of the person we couldn't reach.
Finally, interviewers were told to make at least three at-
tempts to reach each number.

Interviews were conducted on weeknights between 7 and
10 p.m., May 15-27, 1975. A total of 376 numbers were sel-

ected from the 1975 Lansing Area Telephone Directory.1

 

lFour systematic probability samples were drawn from the
1975 Lansing Area Telephone Directory, one for each of the

“so .

I

Isis
Au v

41

Two hundred interviews (53%) were completed. There was no
response for 88 numbers (23%). Additionally, 17 members (5%)
were disconnected or business establishments. Interviewers
encountered either insurmountable language problems or no
adequate respondents available with 13 numbers (3%). Fifty-
eight people (15%) refused to be interviewed. Interviewers
reported that they were unable to make callbacks on approx-
imately 20% of the numbers they were given--they were still
calling untried phone numbers on the last night of data col-
lection. This is seen as a reasonable explanation for the
relatively low completion rate recorded.

Respondents were predominantly female (61.4%), educated
(64.7% with at least some college education), and young (60.1%
younger than 40). (Appendix B supplies a more detailed demo-
graphic description of the respondents in each wave of data
collection.) Finally, a total of 32 respondents (16%) indi-
cated that they never watched the national news; these pe0p1e
were not asked any questions (e.g., motivations) that related
to viewing these newscasts.

Motivations for the researcher-generated list were de-
rived from research in related areas (e.g., Berelson [1949]
"What 'Missing' the Newspaper Means") and discussions with

colleagues and friends centering on the reasons why they

 

four waves of data collection. The size of each sample
selected was determined by the desired number of completions
for that wave. It was possible for a telephone number to be
selected for use in more than one wave of data collection.

Watched the news.

Final selection of the items was based

on this researcher's perception of their utility in this in-

vestigation--e.g., whether they would be regarded as an im-

portant factor influencing exposure to the news by at least

10% of the sample.

as related to information—acquisition.

Of the 18 reasons selected,7 were seen

The remaining 11

were conceived of as measures of recreation/diversion motiva-

tions.

Figure 2.1 lists these 18 motivations according to

the factors this researcher predicted they would be compon-

ents of.

Infometion—Acquisitim thivations

tolm£p143widievau3 hicmher
comnzies
botmdprmaphmiahami

toluwe4smmmhhx;inbuxstnxgto
taDcabmnzwiulnyzhflemxsor
:fimfily

tolqnpig)wiU1poLuficiLevens
in<mnrcomflny

tolm£p14>widithelkuest
eazmndcrmws

tn:&xahaw1?lllxeafflxnedlnrtMe
dayfisevafis

thecxmnenhnfiesafi:theemd<fifthe

pnxnamlrflr>me1ntbmshmxiwhatfis

gohxgon

FhfimeiLl.

R2cnxuiomfifixersnxithiwnjons

flarekntafunraluudckw

IIUke1x>saatheshuenafifing
iifingsthatrmppamtozxmpha
baaneIEhawanoflfingeflse1x>do
kecammacxherlxxmdezhithelxxse
auexwunhhxgit ‘
tseamxalienymzseehxythnxfisthat
Iwwelummenedtxflby

so.I<xn1fongfizaboutrmrpniflems
finraWfile

baxnmermrfrkxfls‘wmch
fflkfingcmn:what%shaggafingamfls
samaexcufimauztormrlifla
Ixmamxawmaithermwmxmmenstaug
it's like listening to a friend
I feel a little better knowing

'me.oUEmsanreewamwonxeoff
thamne

because I like to*watch television
andthemrsrxmhhmyehxron

ResearcherbGenerated List of Motivations

Classified.by ResearCher Prediction of Factor

Oamxsithml

43

Within the first function of this wave of data collec-
tion, interest focused on (1) the applicability of and redun-
dancies in the set of researcher-generated motivations for
watching the national news, and (2) the ability of respond-
ents to generate additional motivations.

(1) Respondents were told that they were going to be
read "a list of reasons other people gave us for watching
news programs" and asked to tell the interviewer how impor-
tant each of the reasons "is when you watch the news."

Four response categories were provided:

not important at all
not very important
somewhat important
very important

Table 2.1 summarizes responses to this researcher-generated
list of motivations. The data indicate that respondents
(claim they) are strongly motivated by information needs.
Most respondents tended to scorn the non-information gratifi-
cations. On the other hand, for each of these non-informa-
tion reasons, at least 10% acknowledged that the reason was

either "somewhat" or "very" important.

 

2The reasons were randomly ordered with the section of
the questionnaire devoted to motivations. This procedure,
used in each wave of data collection, represented an attempt
to protect against the formation of response sets in re-
action to a series of similar motivations.

44

Table 2 . l. Martivations for Watching the News: Respondent Reactions
to the Researcher-Generated List

 

Percentage Responding
not inpor- not very sonewhat very im-

 

tant at all inportant important portant
to relax after a hard day 28 33 27 13
to keep up with events in
other countries 0 4 34 62
to help Ire plan ahead 23 36 24 17

to have satething to talk
about with my friends or

family 10 23 47 19
I like to see the interesting

things that happen to people 7 13 49 31
because I have nothing else

to do

to keep 1p with political

events in our country 3 2 21 73
because other people in the

house are watching it 43 35 18 4
because I enjoy seeing things

that have happened today 4 6 35 55
to keep up with the latest

econanic news 4 9 30 57
so I can forget about my

problems for awhile 50 35 9 6
to see how I'll be affected

by the day's events 11 27 40 21
because my friends watch 56 37 5 2

the oamentaries at the end

of the program help me under-

stand what's going on 11 21 41 27
finding out what's happening

adds sate excitement to my

life 34 34 28 4
because when the newscasters

talk, it's like listening

to a friend 31 33 29 7
I feel a little better knowing

that others are even worse

off than ne 48 27 15 10
because I like to watch tele- -

vision and there's nothing

else on 63 26 9 2

 

Based on answers to the question "Now I'm going to read you a list of rea-
sons other people gave us for watching the national news prograns. For
each reason, I'd like you to tell me how inportant that is when you watch
the news."

'Ihese reasons were listed in order of presentation on the questionnaire.

45

In an effort to eliminate redundancies (operationalized
as correlations above .75), intercorrelations among the rea-
sons were examined. (See Appendix C) The highest correla-
tion was .42. The average inter-item correlation was .17.
Thus, while the reasons generated shared some variance with
each other, for the most part, they were independent. As
such, each of these reasons merited inclusion in the second
wave of data collection.

(2) Brigg to being read this researcher's list of moti-
vations, respondents were asked "to think for a moment and
then tell us what are the reasons why you watch these national
news programs." Interviewers were instructed to (l) accept/
encourage multiple answers, and (2) probe for motives under-
lying responses such as "it's a habit." (A list of reasons
which best fit the data was developed. Table 2.2 presents
this list, along with the number of respondents mentioning
each reason.

After generating their own responses and then responding
to the researcher-generated list, respondents were asked if
they watched that evening's national news. Those who replied
affirmatively were then asked "What are the reasons why you

watched tonight's newscast?" It was h0ped that respondent

recall of gratifications sought would be informative given
the recency of the viewing. However, other than citing
the desire to find out about a particular news event

(interviews were conducted during the Mayaguez incident),

46

Table 2.2. Respondent-Generated Reasons for Watching the

News

 

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

to be informed - find out what's going on (n=78)
to find out what's going on in the U.S. or world (n=3l)

because it's entertaining, interesting, enjoy watching
(n=20)

to be kept up to date - current news (n=18)

no newspaper/radio - no time and/or money (n=l7)
it's comprehensive; it provides best coverage (n=15)
it supplements the newspaper or radio (n=l3)

because of the newscaster or the commentators (n=ll)

nothing else on TV; TV was on and the news followed
another program (n=9)

it fits into the dinner routine/allows for other things
to be done at same time (n=8)

it summarizes/condenses the news (n=7)

it satisfies need/curiosity to know (n=5)

it's more informative/better perspective than local
newspapers/stations (n=5)

it's easier than newspapers/lazy (n=5)

for reassurance, that everything's ok or in normal
state of being messed up (n=4)

to see the news (n=4)

it's a quick way to get the news (n=4)

because there's nothing else to do (n=4)

for the human interest stories (n=3)

because someone else in the family is watching (n=3)
to relax (n=2)

for the commentaries (n=l)

 

47
responses were similar to those mentioned previously. Table
2.3 provides this list of reasons and corresponding number

of respondents mentioning each motivation.

Table 2.3. Respondent-Generated Reasons for Watching that
Evening's Newscast

 

l. to be informed; to see what's going on (n=22)
2. to find out about a particular foreign event (n=l7)
3. because it's a habit (n=l4)

4. it's the only news source that day - e.g. missed
reading the paper (n=8)

5. because of a felt need/obligation to know (n=6)
6. it's enjoyable to watch (n=5)
7. to find out about world events (n=4)
8. because it's on (n=4)
9. to find out what the president is doing (n=3)
10. it's part of dinner; it's on while we eat (n=3)
11. to relax (n=3)
12. to find out about particular weather problems (n=2)
13. because there's nothing else to do (n=2)
14. it's easy to understand (n=l)

15. because of the newscaster (n=l)

 

Based on the data gathered, 11 additional reasons for
viewing the news were accepted for inclusion in the second
wave of data collection. Selection was based on the follow-

ing criteria: (1) the perceived dissimilarity of the item

48
with items on the researcher generated list, and (2) the
number of respondents mentioning the reason. Figure 2.2
lists these additional motivations according to the factors

this researcher predicted they would be components of.

Infionmationerquisition Motivations Recreation/Diversion Motivations

it's Hy only source of news for because it's a habit

the day it's something to listen tO‘while
it'srmneeinfinmathmathanthe 12eatcn:do<xmer‘flfingsamxmmd
local papers or stations the house
tolmeptq>wifl1thelkmest itksenfinidhfing

b grmws became flmaTvas<31amdthe
1x>get1nn£2infimmethwlabmn: rmms:flfllomaianoflmn'pnxnem

an event I heard about earlier someone in the house just watched

:Hfls acmfickamtleasyVEw'to
getinfimmed

tolm£p14>wiu1cmr<xxmtqfls
rehnjonsvdth<xmercxmnudes

txaaemnelnathatewenwjung
in'Umzwotkiisgnetquudi
thesxme

Figure 2.2. RespondenteGenerated Reasons Accepted fOr
Inclusion in the Second wave of Data Collection
Classified by Researcher Prediction of Factor

Oamnsfljon
Moser and Kalton (1972) state that checking the adequacy
of the test instrument is "probably the most valuable function
of the pilot survey" (p. 49). While the primary purpose of
wave 1 was the ascertainment of a list of reasons for viewing
the news, this researcher was also interested in (l) the
clarity of the questions asked, and (2) the appropriateness

of the response categories provided.

49

(l) The concern with clarity was an attempt to,
as Babbie (1973) states, "insure that the instrument will
make sense to, and be useful in understanding, all types of
respondents in the population" (p. 207). Here, questions
were examined for multiple, "other," and qualified answers
as well as failures to answer at all. Additionally, inter-
viewers were asked whether respondents appeared to under-
stand the meaning of the questions being asked. Based on
interviewer feedback and a handful of multiple answers, it
was clear that the question attempting to ascertain the re-
spondent's source of "most of your news about what's going on
in the world today . . ." (Question 10) needed revision.

(2) ApprOpriateness of the response categories was meas-
ured in terms of respondent understanding of the choices
available and the amount of variance in the selection of re-
sponses. Interviewers reported that some respondents had
difficulty grasping the distinctions between the four
"importance" choices provided with the motivation items.
Additionally, this researcher expected less skewness/additional
variance in the responses to reasons for watching the news.
Sufficient variance in responses to these items was seen as
crucial to the test of the hypotheses; without it, correla-
tions would be attenuated and, hence, suggest weak relation-
ships. Given these problems, the motivation sequence needed

revision.

L—h

50
Wave 2

On the basis of (l) respondent reactions to the re-
searcher-generated list and (2) additional respondent contri-
butions (Figure 2.2) a list of 29 gratifications sought
from the news was compiled. This list was regarded as too
lengthy to be included in the final instrument. Additionally,
this researcher was concerned with the possibility that each
respondent's motivations might fluctuate dramatically on a
daily basis. Such movement was regarded as deleterious to
the examination of the relationship between motivations for
viewing the news and news recall. For example, someone
typically turning to televised news for information, and thus
replying to the question as such, might have turned to that
evening's newscast for respite, thus reducing his/her recall
score. The more frequent the occurrence of this, the more
likely a Type II error when assessing this relationship.

The second wave of data collection served to winnow the
list of motivations to a more manageable size. It also
functioned as a test of the relationship between motivations
for viewing the news on an in-general and that-evening basis.
In short, this survey determined both the motivations and the
method of assessing them to be utilized in the final instru-
ment.

Interviews were conducted on weeknights between 7 and
10 p.m., June 23-27, 1975. A total of 390 numbers were

selected from the 1975 Lansing Area Telephone Directory, and

51
209 interviews (54%) were completed. There was no response
for 83 numbers (21%). Additionally, 49 numbers (13%) were
disconnected and 4 (1%) belonged to businesses. Interviewers
were unable to complete 14 calls (4%) because of insurmount-
able language problems or lack of an adequate respondent
available. Thirty-one people (8%) refused to be interviewed.
As with wave 1, this researcher accounts for the relatively
low completion rate on the basis of insufficient callbacks on
approximately 15% of the numbers selected. Of those inter-
viewed, 54.1% were women, 63.2% had at least some college
education, and 55.4% were younger than 40.

Interviewing procedures were identical to those followed
in wave 1.

The questionnaire utilized in wave 2 was almost entirely
devoted to the assessment of motivations for viewing the news.
While the motivation sequence needed modification, the intro-
duction to the section, the wording of the items, and the
response categories provided remained the same, affording
the researcher additional information on which to base the
final instrument.

A total of 38 respondents (18.2%) reported that they
never watched the national news. These people were asked a
few demographic questions and then thanked for their time.
All other respondents were asked how important each of the
29 reasons "is when you watch the news." Table 2.4 provides

responses to the composite researcher/respondent generated

52

Table 2. 4 . mtivations Influencing Why (he Usually Watches the News :
Respondent Reactions to the Respondent and Researcher-
Generated List

 

Percentage Responding
not inpor- not very somewhat very im-
tant at all important important portant

 

 

to have satething to talk

about with my friends or

family - 19 35 32 12
because it's a habit 35 32 26 5
because the camentaries at

the end of the program

help He understand what' 5

going on 17 21 36 23
became I enjoy seeing

things that have happened

today 4 6 37 51
to see how I'll be affected

by the day's events 7 24 39 29
to keep up with political

events in our country 5 9 37 48
because when the newscasters

talk, it's like listening

to a friend 30 31 28 10
it's my mly source of news

for the day 33 26 24 15
it's nore informative than

the local papers or stations 6 14 46 32
finding out what's happening

adds sone excitenent to my

life 23 39 24 13
because my friends watch 6 3 29 4 2
to keep up with the latest

breaking news 1 2 38 57

it's sonething to listen to

while I eat or do other

things around the house 41 32 19 6
to get mare information about

an event I heard about

earlier 3 6 42 47
because I like to watch tele-

vision and there's nothing

else on 53 35 6 4
to keep up with the latest

econanic news 5 12 42 39
it's entertaining 24 24 43 7
so I can forget about my

problems for awhile 55 32 8 3

it's a quick and easy way
to get infomed l 2 50 45

53
Table 2.4 (oont'd)

beuneeiltewelmMidngeflse

'UJdb 58 31 6 3
tx>kefl>upvdth<mn:omxmxy%5

Jxflatflmuswidicnher

ommuzies 4 8 42 44
to relax after a hard day 32 29 32 6
I Lflmato:xx2in&nestnx;

thump'UEmLMQxem‘UJ

people 5 13 59 22
lxxausacmhergxophain'Uxa
house are watching 47 29 17 6

beowmxzthefnlwas<x1and

tmelxae fifllomaiamfiier

pnxnemsxmeomain'Ur:

houaajustvwfinhai 58 30 8 3
I fiafl.a.Lfliielxxxer

knomhmgthatcxhensaue

even worse off than me 53 22 13 ll
toqu$>upme11evauxsin

(fiber<:MIN1ies 3 7 44 44
to help ne plan ahead 23 28 35 12

haaeeunane'flum.ewaythhx;
in'UuaworkiisgnetQ(
mudh the same 31 36 26 6

 

list. Reactions were similar to those recorded in wave 1;
information-acquisition items were evaluated as important,
recreation and diversion motives as relatively unimportant.
This pattern was discernible in the respondent-generated
items as well as in those items develOped by the researcher.
Those who watched that evening's newscast (n=56, 26.8%
of the entire sample) received a double dose of the motiva-
tion items; immediately after providing an answer to each
motive, these respondents were asked, "And how important was
that reason for you when you watched the news tonight?" As

can be imagined, the task of asking or answering each

54
motivation twice was by no means an easy one.

Motivations for viewing the news on any one particular
evening did not appear to dramatically differ from the rea-
sons generally motivating respondents to engage in this media
behavior. As Table 2.5 indicates, the correlations of moti-
vations with themselves when assessed on an in general and
that evening basis are extremely high. The magnitude of the
relationship might raise some doubts about the validity of
the responses provided--e.g., perhaps respondents failed to
grasp the distinction between why they usually watched the
news and why they watched the news that evening. Anticipating
this possibility, interviewers were instructed to repeat and/
or clarify instructions to those who gave identical impor-
tance scores to the in general and tonight portions of the
first few motivations. Interviewers indicated that respon-
dents were aware of the distinction; when asked, a number of
respondents mentioned that their answers were identical be-
cause they watched the news that evening for the same reason(s)
they usually watched the news. Given these findings, this
researcher's concern about assessing atypical motivation
states was considerably diminished. As such, it was decided
that the final instrument would assess the gratifications

sought from that evening's newscast.

55

Table 2. 5. Correlation between the Measurement of Motivation in
an In General and Tonight Basis

 

 

Correlation
Reason Coefficient

to have something to talk about with my friends

or family .76
because it's a habit .81
because the conmentaries at the end of the program help

me understand what's going on .92
because I enjoy seeing things that have happened today .84
to see l'nw I'll be affected by the day's events .83
to keep up with political events in our country .71
because when the newscasters talk, it's like listening

to a friend .92
it's my only source of news for the day .86
it's nore informative than the local papers or stations . 98
finding out what's happening adds sate excitment to my

life .90
because my friends watch .98
to keep up with the latest breaking news .90
it's something to listen to while I eat or do other

things around the house . .87
to get more information about an event I heard about

earlier .66
because I like to watch television and there's nothing

else on .82
to keep up with the latest eoonanic news .94
it's entertaining .95
so I can forget about my problems for awhile .99
it's a quick and easy way to get informed .95
because I have nothing else to do .92
to keep up with our country's relations with other countries .94
to relax after a hard day .90
I like to see interesting things that happen to people .80
because other people in the house are watching .85

because the 'IV was on and the news followed another
program saneone in the house just watched .61

56
Tabk22.5 kpntNL)

I feel a little better knowing others are even.worse off than me .99

to keep up with events in other countries . 86
to help me plan ahead .96
to assure me that everything in the world is pretty mudh

thesime .94

 

Selection of Motivations for the Final Test Instrument -

 

Cluster analyses were performed on the researcher-generated
motivations measured in wave 1 and the in general assessment
of motivations measured in wave 2. (Similar analyses were
not performed on the respondent-generated motivations in
wave 1 and the tonight assessment of motivations in wave 2;
there were not enough responses/respondents in either situa—
tion to make the procedure meaningful.)g The cluster analysis
routine employed in this study was succinctly described by

Roloff (1975):

l. A principal component's factor analysis
is done using each variable's largest
correlation as its communality and
Kaiser's criterion of eigenvalue being
greater than 1.00 for determining the
number of factors.

2. A varimax factor analysis is done and the
items reordered on each factor by their
highest factor loading on all factors and
within each factor in descending order by
factor loading.

3. A correlation matrix is printed using as
clusters the variables with their highest
factor loadings on a given factor.

4. The correlations are examined for inter-
correlations among cluster items and cluster
true scores (highest correlation corrected
for attenuation) and correlations between
cluster items and other cluster true scores
(pp. 43-44).

57

Two factors emerged from the varimax factor solutions
of the wave 1 data, accounting for 29% of the variance.

(See Table 2.6) The standard score coefficient alphas were
high (.75 and .71). On the basis of the factor loadings,
the first factor appeared to center around recreational and
diversionary gratifications associated with the news. The
second factor clearly related to information-acquisition
motivations. This two factor information-acquisition
recreation/diversion solution was as anticipated.

Three factors emerged from the varimax factor solutions
of the wave 2 data, accounting for 32% of the variance.

(See Table 2.7) The standard score coefficient alphas were
high (.73, .80, .77). The second factor clearly dealt with
the acquisition of information. Given the factor solution

of the wave 1 data, this researcher was surprised to find two
additional factors. However, it appears that instead of one
factor encompassing both recreation and diversion motivations,
two factors emerged, one (factor 1) primarily dealing with
recreation motives, the other (factor 3) embracing diversion
motivations.

The final procedure in a cluster analysis involves the
reduction of the clusters to those making the most empirical,
theoretic, and intuitive sense. There are no formal rules
for the researcher to follow when finalizing the clusters.
Final clusters for the data in wave 1 and for the data in

wave 2 were determined on the basis of researcher judgment

58

Table 2 .6 . Varimax Factors for Watching the News: Wave 1*

 

 

 

 

Factor 1 Factor 2
Recreation/ Information
Item Diversion Acquisition
so I can forget about my problerrs for awhile .68** .16
because when the newscasters talk, it's like
listemn' g to a friend .54** .29
became I like to watch television and
there's nothing else on .53** -.29
I feel a little better knowm' 9 that others
are even worse off than Ire .53* * -.24
because my friends watch .51* * .06
finding out mat's happening adds sone
excitamt to try life .48* * .17
I like to see interesting tth' gs that happm .
to peOple .46* * .24
to help ne plan ahead .45* * .36
became I have nothing else to do .41* * -.23
to relax after a hard day .37* * .25
because other people in the house are watching it .23* * .10
to keep up with the latest economic news .02 .65**
to keep up with events in other countries -.09 .57**
to keep up with political events in our country -.04 .52**
to see how I'll be affected by the day's events .28 .52**
to have sonething to talk about with my friends
or family .18 .48**
the connentaries at the end of the program
help ne understand what's going on .33 .39**
became I enjoy seeing things that have
happened today .27 .34**
PrOportion of Variance .16 .13
Standard Coefficient Alpha .75 .71

 

*

Based m respaxses to the researcher-generated list of activations
**

Highest facmr loading

59

Table 2.7. Varitrax Factors for Watching the News:

 

 

 

Wave 2*
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Information
Item Recreation Acqui sition Diversion

finding out what's happening adds

sone excitement to my life .62** .08 .19
because when the newscasters talk,

it's like listening to a friend .62** .11 -.01
it's my only source of news for

the day .51** -.15 .01
I like to see interesting things

happen to people .49** .22 .14
because the camentaries at the

end of the program help me

understand what's going on .47** .18 .05
to relax after a hard day .47** -.05 .15
I feel a little better knowing

others are worse off than me .44** .07 .30
to assure me that everything in

the world is pretty much the

same .44** .03 .28
to have sanething to talk about with

friends or family .41** .37 .21
it's a quick and easy my to get

infonred .40** .18 -.02
because I enjoy seeing things that

have happened today .38** .20 -.11
to see how I'll be affected by the

day's events .37** .34 .05
it's nore informative than the

local papers or stations .34** .09 -.16
it's entertaining .33** -.02 .10
because it's a habit .31** .08 .25
tokeepupwith events inother

countries . 01 . 77** - . 14
to keep up with our country's

relations with other countries .11 .68** -.16
to keep up with political events

in our country ' -.ll .61** -.20
to keep up with the latest

economic news .12 .55** 0
to keep up with the latest

breaking news .25 .48** -.21
to help me plan ahead .28 .39** .24
to get nore infonnation about an

event I heard about earlier .02 .26** .02
because I have nothing else to do .04 -.27 .66**

because the 'IV was on and the news
followed another program someone
in the house just watched -.02 -.12 .64**

60
Table 2.7 (cont'd.)

beamseIIliketx>wanxTVamd

there's nothing else on .21 -.12 .61**
bemusecfihergxophain'Uxahomea
are watching -. l4 . 06 . 56**
soitcen:fingetatoutrmrpniflems
for awhile .31 —.13 .52**

it$ssamfiifing'u3lisUaltowflfile
Iewm<mrdo<nhertidngseuouxi

the house .44 —.07 .46**

because my friends watCh .13 .05 .43**
Proportion of variance .12 .10 .10
Standard coefficient Alpha .73 .80 .77

 

*

Based on responses to the in general assessment.of:motivations
**

Ifighenzfamum'hmxfing

following an examination of (l) the intercorrelations among
the items within and across the clusters (see Appendix C),
(2) the strength of the relationship between the item and
its cluster true score, and (3) the magnitude of the differ—
ence of the correlations of the item with its cluster true

score and other conceptually distinct clusters' true scores.

 

(For example, in wave 2, an item in the recreation cluster
would be analyzed in terms of its correlation with the
recreation cluster's true score and the information cluster's
true score. Because the recreation and diversion clusters
are regarded as conceptually similar, no comparison would be
made with the diversion cluster's true score.)

Based on this procedure, 7 items were removed from the

clusters in wave 1 and 11 items were removed from the

61

clusters in wave 2. Table 2.8 lists the items that were
removed. Table 2.9 lists the final composition of the
clusters for wave 1 and for wave 2.

A number of differences exist in the composition of
the final clusters that emerged in waves 1 and 2. (This was
not unexpected, given the additional 11 items in wave 2.)
As such, cluster composition was only one of six factors con-
sidered in the selection of motivations for the final test
instrument. The other 5 factors were (1) factor loading on
the varimax factor solutions, (2) intercorrelation of items
within and across clusters, (3) strength of relationship
with cluster true scores, (4) magnitude of difference be-
tween correlation with cluster true score and correlation
with other conceptually distinct cluster true scores, and
(5) correlation of responses to in general and that evening
assessments of motivations. This researcher was afraid that
rigid adherence toaipriori inclusion/exclusion standards for
each of the criteria would result in the exclusion of almost
all of the items. As such, researcher judgment, rather than
more scientificarpriori standards, was used in the selection

of the items for the final instrument.3

 

3To illustrate the judgmental process, "because I had
nothing else to do" was selected for inclusion in the final
instrument because it (1) had the strongest loading (.66) on
the diversion factor in wave 2, (2) loaded poorly on the con-
ceptually distinct information-acquisition factor in waves 1
and 2 (-.23 and -.27 respectively), (3) was highly correlated
(.69) with its cluster true score and moderately correlated
(.28 to .51) with other items in its cluster in wave 2, (4)

62

Table 2.8. Items Removed from

Clusters in Waves 1 and 2

 

kae l
Infinmatflmrficquflfiiionhtmiwmjons

 

WHWBZ
InfOrmation—Acquisition Motivations

 

tolwwe:emmmhhxgtotzdkatout
wiUIHyzfidemksorzfimdly

the<xmmefinrn§3attheeamlofthe
pnxnemlmflptmaunknstmxl
whatksgonxgon

became Iezdcysmehxythnxfi
thatlwwelugmenefltxday

jkxxemdonflfiyenfionImmiwnioms

 

I Lfleatoaax:inanesthxythhmfi
thattwppaltolxnpha
'UJheupmegflanafleed
to:mflaxan&eraihaniday

lxxsmse<fii£m'pexfle bathe
Irmseaueimnxhbxyit

‘UDheuamegflaneflmed

toqu¥>upvfith'dxalanefi:bnafldng
IEMS

togx¢Lmonainfinmetflxxabmmzan
event I heard about earlier

Phonfiuionbtmiwmjons

 

tolmnm:emmthKJtoizflkaflxmtvdth
my friends or family

bexnseIEenyy'eaflngifldngsthat
havelwppaeflmuxhw

tr»eaahow2fllllxaaffixiedlnzthe
(Eye'seammts

:Hfls acnfickemmlewazwaytx>be
infinmed

itfismomainfimmetiwathanthekaal
jgmxmscnfsumjons

itwsenUniahfing
beane:Hflsiatmbit

Dhmushxmefiyatkms
bexmBeImrfrhxob‘mHCh

 

 

 

was a component in the final recreation/diversion cluster in

wave 1 and the diversion cluster in wave 2,

vary very much on the basis of

and (5) did not
method of assessment (the cor-

relation between the in general and that evening assessments

was .92).

63

 

Table 2.9. Final Composition of the Clusters for Waves
land2
wave 1 wave 2

 

InfinmatflxrAcnfisithlMmjvadmms
‘u>keq>upiflhh‘flxalau§m
ecmxmdcxxme
bolmep14>wifl1evefis hncmher
cmnnzies

tolex$>upwd1thduxicaleammts
in<xurcmrury

tx»eaahowifllllxzafflxiedlnr
‘uxedaywseuaus

IEcnefliomflfivenfionImmiwfljoms

 

ealicmmfbngfi:abmfi:mygnobkms
flnradfile

lxmauaewhamtherxmecaMxms
tang itwslflealh32nhxyto
aifnkmd
bammsalilfluatovmmdntehe-
vflficn.mxithaxflsrxmhhmi
ehxeon

I1helaalitthatetUnrhmndng
thatcxmensaneeewxxwonxaoff
flmnnne

beansetmrfnkmdswwuch

fhxfing<mn:wmmfslquenhx;
adksscmeemcfixmenttx>myInie

bexueeIthawanoflfingeflse1x>do

 

InformationrAcquisiticn.Motivations
tolex¥>upvdth‘3ualanefizecmxmdc
rmws

tolmep1q>wiU1€wemusincfiher
countries

tolexm»qpvdthlxflitnxfl.eweus
hiourcpuuxy

tolmepthWiulourcomnzyHSre-
lations with other countries

Ebenenjonltfiivatkme

 

beomxxethecxmnenUBdesafl2the<exi
ci'dxapnxnamlxflp>metroenazmd
whatwsgohxjon

lxxeueawhaithermweummenstang
it's like listening to a friend

jfindnxyoutvmatwshqxenhxgadds
sxmeeamiflamnttx>mylife

it's Hy only source of news fOr the
day

tozuflaxanieraihaniéhy

I lfleatosxx:inanxstnxgthnxfi;
thatrmppeItogxnpka

I fixfl.aifiithatetUnrkmwdngtiet
(then;eue:ema1woneacif‘Ufiu1me

‘u)assunane flmn:eveqnidng:h1the
wonuiisgnetq{nudnthesfime

Dhmmshmiubtrwnjons
bexueeIIhawanoufingeflseix>do

lxmamx:flmaTvaB<11amithermms
fblhwed(anthergnognmnsomxme
in‘Uxahomaajustanxhed

rename:Ilikeix>wau31tekadshx1
and there's nothing else on

64

Table 2.9 (cont'd.)

tecamxeodxu'paxfle bathe
homxaanawaUflfing

soiIcan2finpetaflxmmrmr
Lnobkms:flxredfile

it's sonething to listen to
while I eat or do other things
aromxithelxmse

 

Figure 2.3 lists the items that were selected for

inclusion in the final instrument.

InflnmatflzrflcqukfiiionBttiwnjons IkeneniomflfiyenfionIkxiwmjons

trrhe§>upvfith<xm'emnmryws 'UDrehmtaqu:a1Eud<kw'
rehmnonsvnthcfiher<xunbnes lxxaueal InmatomeChtxfle-
tolmeplx>wi31polhjcal visflxxandtjere%snodfing
ewaus.hiour<xanQV ehfiaon

toleeplq>wifl1eveus sacrum: bexnsexdmm'umanemxasuns
comuzies tang,itkslflmalisuadngtx>a
to keep up with the latest friend

eccmmdcxxme bexneeIIrewerxmhtheLeato<k)

loanmealilfiqatosme.huenenfing
ijfinqsthatauelmgpenhxyto
pexfle
fhxfing<mnzwmmfshmnxenhxg
adds sane excitenent to my life

Figure 2.3. Motivations Accepted for Inclusion
in the Final Instrument Classified
by Researcher Prediction of Factor
Composition

65
Wave 3

This effort represented an attempt to ascertain respond-
ent abilities to comprehend and cope with ratio scale re-
sponse categories this researcher hOped to use in the final
instrument. The ratio scales used were bound on both sides,
zero being the lower bound and 100 the upper bound. This
range was selected because of its similarity with the deci-
mal system respondents make daily use of--e.g., money, grades
in school . . . .

In essence, wave 3 pretested a sizable portion of the
final questionnaire.

Interviews were conducted during the last weekend in
June, 1975, between 2 and 5 in the afternoon. While those
hours and the early summer weekend were expected to yield a
disproportionate number of interviews with the elderly, this
was regarded as a conservative test of the scaling approach.
Fifteen people were interviewed by an experienced interviewer
who was intimately familiar with the study and fully aware of
the purpose of this wave of data collection.

No formal (e.g., statistical) analysis was performed.
Instead, the interviewer was queried and the data were eye-
balled in terms of (l) the extent to which respondents re-
quired help using the response categories, (2) the extent to
which the full range of the scales was utilized, and (3) the
amount of data that was missing. While several respondents

required examples illustrating the scaling procedure,

66

everyone caught on and appeared to be able to use some
value between 0 and 100 to represent their position vis-a-
vis each of the questions asked.4 There were no missing
data. Given these findings, this researcher decided to use

ratio scale reSponse categories whenever appropriate.

Wave 4

The survey conducted in wave 4 represented the culmin-
ation of this data gathering process; information collected
here served as the data base for this researcher's test of
the hypotheses generated.

All calls were made from offices in the Department of
Communication at Michigan State University. There were
three reasons for this. First, the recall items on the
questionnaire changed every day and were not available until
after the network news was over. Second, and related to this,
this researcher wanted calls to begin by 7:30 p.m., one half
hour after the newscast ended. Had the interviewers come to
the Department to pick up their surveys and then gone home
to begin making calls, interviewing wouldn't begin until one
hour after the newscast ended. Because the full interview

schedule was expected to take 15 minutes and no interviews

 

4In wave 3, the following variables were assessed using
ratio scales: (1) attentiveness to the newscast, (2) de-
pendence on television for news about the country and the
world, (3) perceived informedness about national and inter-
national events, and (4) motivations for watching the national
news.

67

were to begin after 9:30 p.m., the 8 p.m. starting time
would severely curtail the number of interviews to be com-
pleted. Finally, anticipating interviewing problems (see
the section on interviewers), this researcher wanted to be
as accessible as was physically possible to answer on the
spot questions about interviewing procedures. Having the
interviewers in adjacent offices satisfied this.

Each interviewer was expected to complete 4 "CBS" and
4 "non-CBS"5 interviews during the two-hour interviewing
sessions. Most respondents did not watch the CBS news on
the evening they were called. In an attempt to obtain the
desired number of "CBS" completions, interviewers were given
instructions to switch to the following introduction after
they completed 4 "non-CBS" interviews:-

Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the

Department of Communication at Michigan State

University. We're calling adults in the Lansing

area who've watched the national news tonight on

CBS, asking them their opinions about television

news programs. Did you watch the national news

tonight on CBS? (IF YES) Can we ask you some

questions about the news? (IF NO) Did any other

adult in your home watch the CBS national news

tonight?

After three nights, it appeared as if CBS (as well as

NBC and ABC) news viewers were an endangered species.6 As

 

5"Non-CBS" represents respondents who (I) watched an
early evening national newscast on NBC or ABC, or (2) did
not watch any national newscast that evening.

6This is attributed to two factors: (1) the perfect
summer weather, and (2) the lack of dramatic events being
reported.

68

a result of this scarcity, interviewers tended to complete
their "non-CBS" interviews by 8:30, with the majority of CBS
viewers interviewed between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m. To counter
this potential source of bias (recall that comparisons were
going to be made between viewers and non-viewers), inter-
viewers were instructed to begin searching for CBS viewers
after two "non-CBS" respondents were contacted.

No attempt was made to reach each number on three dif-
ferent evenings; it was feared that such a method would
leave the interviewers with an inordinate amount of "no
answer" telephone numbers on the final nights of the study.
Instead, interviewers were given fresh lists of numbers (n=40)
each evening and requested to make callbacks on all "no
answer" numbers before that evening's interview session
terminated.

Interviews were conducted on weeknights between 7:15
and 9:30, July 1, 2, 3, and 7-10, 1975. The number of days
and hours of data collection were selected in order to (1)
allow for the develOpment and dissemination of each evening's
news recall items, (2) protect against the contamination of
the results based on overly differential amounts of time be-
tween the viewing of the newscast and the interview, and (3)
protect against the data being gathered on a single night
in which the news might be unrepresentative.

A total of 4,018 numbers was selected from the 1975

Lansing Area Telephone Directory and 563 interviews were

69

completed (14%). (Twenty of these completions were dis-
carded because of substantial amounts of missing data or
data inaccurately recorded by the interviewer.) There was
no response for 1388 numbers (35%). Additionally, 364
numbers (9%) were disconnected and 25 numbers (1%) belonged
to business establishments. Interviewers encountered either
insurmountable language problems or no adequate respondents
available with 58 numbers (1%). Three hundred and twenty-
eight people (8%) refused to be interviewed. Interviews
were not conducted with 1292 people (32%) who appeared re-
ceptive but failed to meet the criterion of viewing the
national news on CBS that evening. Of those interviewed,
58.8% were female, 61.4% had at least some college education,
53% were younger than 40, and 91.4% were Caucasian.

The Test Instrument - The test instrument included

 

items which measured the following variables: (1) frequency
and patterns of exposure to the early evening national news—
casts; (2) exposure and attention to, and distractions from,
that evening's newscast; (3) perceived knowledge levels about
national and world events; (4) motivation for watching that
evening's newscast (if watched); (5) recall of news items
aired on CBS that evening; (6) frequency of national news-
stimulated information-seeking; (7) frequency of interpersonal
discussions about American and world events; (8) perception

of friends' attitudes toward the value of being informed

about national and world events; and (9) respondent

70
demographic characteristics.

Additions; News Recall - In order to develop the news

 

recall items, this researcher and two undergraduate commun-
ication majors who assisted him viewed and audiotaped each
eveningfisCBS national newscast. Among the three, a full set
of notes was taken about each of the items covered. At the
end of each newscast, 10 news items were selected for in-
clusion in that evening's questionnaire; every other news
item broadcast was selected.

The method of assessing recall was similar to the one
used by Stern (1971). Those who watched the news were asked
if they could recall any stories aired on the program. For
each story recalled, respondents were asked if they (1)
could provide any additional details, and (2) had heard
about the event prior to watching the news that evening.
When the respondent appeared to be unable to recall any
(additional) stories in this unaided fashion, the interviewer
then proceeded to read a list of 10 stories (minus the ones
already recalled) taken from that night's newscast. After
each story, the interviewer asked if the reSpondent recalled
seeing or hearing it in the newscast. For each affirmative
reply, the interviewer asked for additional details and
whether the respondent heard about the story previously. In
short, for those who watched that evening's CBS news, there
were four types of recall for each of the news items on the

questionnaire: (1) no recall at all, (2) aided recall with

71

the respondent providing no additional details, (3) aided
recall with the respondent providing additional details, and
(4) unaided recall.7

Those not watching the CBS news were read a list of
"some stories making today's news" and asked to tell the
interviewer if they remembered hearing about the story that
day. For each story recalled, respondents were asked if
they could supply additional details about it. Thus, for
"non-CBS" respondents, there were three levels of recall for
each news item: (1) no recall at all, (2) aided recall with-
out additional details provided, and (3) aided recall with
additional details provided.

Modifications: (l) Combining of Items - Two sets of

 

two question items were collapsed into one question items.

The first set dealt with frequency of exposure to the national

 

7A second method of measuring recall for CBS viewers
was attempted. Rather than assessing recall on the basis of
respondent (l) ability to recollect new items without any help
or (2) reaction to summary statements about each news event,
here recall was assessed on the basis of responses to ques—
tions about news items on the program. (e.g., "Why did the
Federal Government close down the Crater Lake National Park
in Oregon?")

It was hOped that comparisons in recall scores on the
basis of method of assessment would be made. However, this
method of assessing recall was not initiated until the fourth
evening of data collection. Additionally, because of the
scarcity of CBS news viewers,this method was used only when
there were enough interviewers on a given evening to guarantee
sufficient number of completed interviews with CBS news
viewers (nz30) using the primary measure of recall. As such,
this alternative method was used on three evenings; 50 inter-
views were completed. This n was not seen as sufficient to
allow for valid comparison b§tween the two methods.

72

news, the second with frequency of national news stimulated

information seeking.

Frequency of Exposure:

(waves 1-3) First, do you ever watch the national

(wave 4)

news programs that are shown each
evening at 6:30? ___yes ___no
(IF YES) About how often do you watch
one of these national news-
casts? less than once a week
———once or twice a week
:::three or four times
a week
almost every day

About how often do you get a chance to
watch one of the national news programs
that are shown each evening at 6:30?
Would you say less than once a week,
once, twice, three, or four times a week,
or just about every day?

Information Seeking:

(wave 1)

Sometimes, something in the news on TV

will make some people want to find out

more information about that news item.

Has this ever happened to you? ___yes ___no

(IF YES) About how often do you find your-
self going to other media or
friends to get more information
about something you saw on the
national news?

less than once a week

about once a week

a few times a week

almost every day

___every day

(wave 4) About how often do you find yourself going

to the media or to friends to get more in-
formation about something you saw on the
national news? Would you say less than
once a week, once, twice, three, or four
times a week, or just about every day?

35

I‘.‘

73

Modifications: (2) Measurement of Respondent
Motivations - Several modifications were made in the

 

assessment of respondent motivations for watching the news.

Two changes represented attempts to reduce the perceived

social desirability of particular responses.

(a)

(b)

One phrase was added to the introduction to the
motivation items. Thus,

There are a lot of reasons why peOple watch
the news, with no one reason better or worse
than any others. I'm going to read you a
list of reasons other people gave us for
watching the news. I'd like you to tell me
how important each of these reasons was when
you watched the news tonight. Here, zero
equals not at all important and 100 equals
very important.

 

It was hoped that respondents would feel less
inhibited in acknowledging the true strength of
their information-acquisition and recreation/
diversion motivations.

As can be seen in the introduction (above),
instead of the four qualitative response cate-
gories used previously (e.g., "not important at
all"), a numeric ratio scale was provided.
There were three reasons for this: (1) to
obtain a more precise measure of strength of
motivations, (2) to obtain less skewness/greater

variance in responses for the statistical

74
analyses,8 and (3) to obfuscate the perceived
socially desirable response categories.

The third modification in the assessment of respondent
motivations involved the wording of the motivation items them—
selves: Some respondents were confused by the pronouns in
the items, e.g., "because I have nothing else to do." To
rectify this, the pronouns used were switched from the first
person singular to the second person. Thus, for example,
the item just mentioned was changed to "because you have
nothing else to do."

Modifications: (3) Use of Ratio Scale Response
Categories - The final modifiCation in the test instru-

 

ment involved the use of ratio scale response categories.
The following variables were measured using ratio scales:

usual level of attention to the national news programs;

 

8The numeric ratio scale was not uniformly success-
ful in decreasing the skewness/increasing the variance in
responses to the motivation items. While the scale served
to decrease the negative skewness of the information-acqui-
sition motivation items, it tended to increase the positive
skewness of the recreation/diversion motivation items. For
example, while the skewness of the information-acquisition
motivation item "to keep up with the latest economic news"
was -l.329 when using the four qualitative response cate-
gories in wave 1, it decreased to -.854 when using the
numeric ratio scale in wave 4. On the other hand, whereas
the skewness of the recreation/diversion motivation item
"to relax after a hard day" was .269 when using the four
qualitative response categories in wave 1, it increased to
.891 when using the numeric ratio scale in wave 4. (Glass
and Stanley [1970] state that skewness generally ranges be-
tween +3 and -3. For symmetric distributions, the skewness
is zero.) Appendix D provides a table of the skewness
measures of motivation items common to waves 1, 2, and 4.

75

dependence on television for news about the nation and the
world; attention to and distractions from that evening's
newscast; perceived knowledge levels about national and
world events; motivations for watching the news (just dis-
cussed); and, perception of friends' attitudes toward the

value of being informed about national and world events.

Index Construction

 

Much of the analysis was dependent on the construction
of indices of motivations. In order to determine (1) the
number of motivation indices that needed construction, and
(2) the composition of each index, the ten motivation items
appearing in the final questionnaire were cluster analyzed.

Two factors emerged, accounting for 51% of the vari-
ance. Table 2.10 presents the composition of these factors.
The first factor contained recreation and diversion motives
for viewing the news. As such, this cluster was labeled
recreation/diversion. The second cluster was equally pre-
dictable; all four items dealt with the acquisition of
information from the newscast. This cluster was labeled
information-acquisition. Their standard coefficient alphas
were .78 and .86 respectively, both very high.

On the basis of its correlations with the clusters'
true scores, one item ("because you like to see
interesting things that happen to people") was removed from

the first cluster. No other changes were made. Figure 2.4

76

lists the final composition of the clusters obtained in

this analysis.

Table 2.10 Varimax Factors for Watching the News: Wave 4

 

 

 

 

Factor 1 Factor 2
Recreation/ Information-
Item Diversion Acquisition
to relax after a hard day .70* -.01
because you like to watch tele-
vision and there's nothing else
on .69* -.09
because you have nothing else to
do .69* -.03
finding out what's happening adds
some excitement to your life .57* .34
because when the newscasters talk
it's like listening to a friend .52* .24
because you like to see interest-
ing things that happen to people .49* .44
to keep up with events in other
countries .07 .83*
to keep up with our country's re-
lations with other countries .08 .81*
to keep up with political events
in our country -.06 .79*
to keep up with the latest
economic news .14 .69*
Proportion of Variance .23 .28
Standard Coefficient Alpha .78 .86

 

*
Highest factor loading

Information-Acquisition and Recreation/Diversion -

 

Two motivation indices were constructed, both isomorphic

77
with the cluster represented. Components contributed
equally to the indices. Thus, an individual's score on
each index was equal to the sum of his/her scores on each

of the contributing elements.9

Recreation/Diversion

 

to relax after a hard day
because you like to watch TV and there's nothing else on
because you have nothing else to do

finding out what's happening adds some excitement to your
life

because when the newscasters talk, it's like listening to
a friend

Information-Acquisition

 

to keep up with events in other countries
to keep up with our country's relations with other countries
to keep up with political events in our country

to keep up with the latest economic news

Figure 2.4. Wave 4: Final Composition of
the Clusters

 

9Weighted indices also were constructed. There, an
individual's score was computed by multiplying his or her
score on each motivation item by the item's factor score co-
efficient and then summing all of the products. The correla-
tions between the two unweighted indices and their weighted
counterparts were very high, .86 for the information-acqui-
sition indices and .79 for the recreation/diversion indices.
Weighted and unweighted index correlations with the criterion
variables were very similar. As such, because there was no
theoretical rationale dictating the use of weighted indices,
the unweighted indices were used in the testing of the
research hypotheses.

78
Scores could and did range from 0 to 500 on the
recreation/diversion index and from 0 to 400 on the informa-
tion-acquisition index. The standard coefficient alpha for
the recreation/diversion index was .76. As stated before,
the standard coefficient alpha for the information-acquisition
index was .86.

Purposive Motivations - All motivations in the infor-

 

mation-acquisition and recreation/diversion indices were seen
as legitimate motivating forces. Because the indices con—
sisted of unequal numberscflfitems, an individual's purposive
motivation score was defined as the sum of his/her average
score on the information-acquisition index and his/her aver-
age score on the recreation/diversion index.

Purmot = i-a score + r/d score
4 5

 

 

where

Purmot = purposive motivations

i-a score = information-acquisition index score

4 = number of items in the information—acquisition
index

r/d score = recreation/diversion index score

5 = number of items in the recreation/diversion
index

Scores could and did range from 0 to 200.

Dominance of Information-Acquisition Motivations -

 

Dependence was defined as the ratio of an individual's aver-
age score on the information-acquisition index to the sum of
his/her average scores on the information-acquisition and
recreation/diversion indices (the purposive motivation index).

Dominance = average information-acquisition score
purposive motivation score

 

79
Scores could and did range from 0.0 to 1.0.

Perceived Informedness - This was conceptualized as

 

the respondent's perception of how informed about the nation
he or she usually was. Two items measured this.

Compared with your friends, how informed would you

say you usually are? (Zero equalling much less in-

formed and 100 equalling much more informed)

Compared with those you work with, if you work out-
side the home?

The correlation between these items was .71. The perceived
informedness index was equal to the sum of these items.
Scores could and did range from 0 to 200.

Frequency of News Discussions — Two items measured the

 

frequency of news discussions:

How often do you find yourself talking about
America and world events with your family? Less
than once a week, once, twice, three, four, or
five times a week, or just about every day?

 

How often do you find yourself talking about
America and world eVents with your friends?
(Same response choices utilized)

 

The correlation between these items was .21 (p<.01).
Responses to these items were summed together to form this
index. Scores could and did range from 0 to 12.

Total Recall - For each news item, respondents received

 

a 3 if they were able to recall it without aid, 2 if they re-
called the news item with aid but could provide additional
details about it, 1 if they recalled the item with aid but
could not provide additional details, and 0 if they were un-

able to recall the item at all. Total recall was

80
operationalized as the sum of the number of "unaided recall"
items, the number of "aided recall with details" items, and
the number of "aided recall without details" items. Maxi-
mum possible score was 10, the number of items on each

evening's list. The obtained range was from 0 to 10.10

Interviewers

 

Two experienced interviewers (both females) were paid
for their efforts. All others were undergraduate communica-
tion majors, enrolled in "Leadership" or "Mass Communication"
courses. For these students, interviewing served to partial-
ly fulfill research activities required of them in the
courses mentioned. Approximately half of these students
reported previous telephone interviewing experiences.

This researcher trained all of the interviewers. For
waves 1 and 2, training sessions typically lasted about one
hour and included the following activities: (1) a description
of the study being conducted, (2) a review of each of the

items on the questionnaire, (3) a lecture on correct dialing

 

10A second, weighted index of recall was also computed.
There, a respondent's total recall score was equal to the sum
of his or her scores on each of the news items. Thus, for
example, a respondent would score 30 if he or she was able to
recall all 10 news items in unaided fashion or a 20 if he or
she with aid was able to recall all 10 news items and provide
additional details about each.

The correlation between this index and the recall index
just described in the text was .84. The weighted index was
viewed as redundant and hence not used in the testing of the
hypotheses.

81

and interviewing procedures, and (4) a role-playing exercise
in which each interviewer "interviewed" and then "was inter-
viewed by" one of his or her peers attending the training
session. Four people served as interviewers during wave 1,
six during wave 2. Given these numbers, the training sessions
ran smoothly; at the end of each session, the interviewers
appeared to be fully aware of the demands and nuances of

the interviewing tasks.

Wave 4 required a large pool of interviewers as well
as a much closer review of the interviewing procedures to
be followed. Forty students from two mass communication
courses served as interviewers. Those who attended class
first heard a 50—minute lecture about the study. One week
later, a second class session was devoted to training these
students as interviewers. Those who missed either of these
sessions met privately with this researcher or one of two
students assisting him.

Training 20 people at one time proved to be a formid-
able task. Because of time restrictions and numbers of
questions raised by the students, these students did not
role-play in class. While they were cajoled by the researcher
to corner their friends and/or roommates and practice before
they conducted their first interview, it is doubtful that
all did this.

It was assumed that at the end of the training sessions,

some questions would be left unasked. To counter this, each

82
evening just before the interviewing began, we reviewed the
somewhat detailed procedures that needed to be followed on
the questionnaire. By the end of the first evening of data
collection, it was apparent that a number of the students
attempted to answer their own questions about procedures.
To overcome this, in addition to each evening's pre—inter-
viewing review session, all interviewers were required to
submit their first completed interview of the evening for
inspection. Numbers of mistakes were caught. While nothing
could be done about errors or omissions on the just com-
pleted interviews, it was clear that most of the mistakes

would not be repeated.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter will present the results of the fourth
and final wave of data collection. A total of 13 hypotheses
were tested. The first six hypotheses related to the recall
of televised news items; the remaining hypotheses focus on
selected interrelationships among the components in the uses

and gratifications model.

Preliminary Descriptive Statistics

 

A total of 543 adults were interviewed. Two hundred
and ninety-three respondents viewed that evening's CBS
national newscast. However, 50 of these viewers were not
included in the analyses of Hypotheses l and 2a-e. (See
Chapter II, footnote 7, page 71.) Additionally, eight view-
ers failed to provide responses to at least one of the ten
motivation items. Because (1) indices were used to test the
motivation hypotheses, and (2) this researcher did not want
to artificially create the indices (e.g., by substituting
mean values for each piece of missing data), these respond—
ents were excluded from the analyses of Hypotheses 2a-e.

Finally, 29 respondents watched that evening's national
83

84
newscast on another network. In order not to blur the dis-
tinction between the viewing and non-viewing groups, these
respondents were not included in any of the analyses under-
taken.

Three sets of viewer/non-viewer comparisons are worth
noting (See Table 3.1 for descriptive data about each of
the variables used in the study.) Demographically, viewers
tended to be male and older than their non-viewing counter-
parts. Both groups had similar proportions reporting at
least some college education and were overwhelmingly white.

The second set of comparisons focused on consumption
of televised national news. Based on self-reports, viewers
of that evening's newscast appeared to watch the news more
frequently and be more attentive when watching; whereas
64.2% of the viewers reported that they watched the news
"just about every day," only 29.4% of the non-viewers re-
ported watching the national news with such regularity.
Moreover, while viewers averaged 78.9 out of 100 on an atten-
tion scale where 100 equaled completely attentive, their
counterparts averaged only 71.8. There was no difference
between the groups' perceived dependency on television for
news about the nation and the world; both groups averaged
approximately 60 where 0 equaled not at all dependent and
100 equaled totally dependent on television for national and

international news.

5
8

 

: : .. OOHIO V0 .mm .HN. omm I Hung

.. : : OOHIO NH .¢N mH .mm I 8m

= = : OOHIO mm oNM FN .00 I Ufi8w

.. .. .. OOHIo NN .mN mm do I S5050

.. : : OOH IO mm . mN mm . VH I QUQUHHPOZ

: = .. OOHIO Nm o VM mm . OM I .Hflmmomimz

.. : : OOHIO ¢m . 5N MO . $0 I HHOQ

.. .. .. ooHIo hm .mN 8.3. I :OflmHmm

.. .. .. OOHIO 5N .HM mH . mH I Egfinvz

muw3wH> mo meow OOHIo on .vm ON . mN I wamm
Wampum
COHUQVUQQ

NIH om.o mmH NIH Hm.o mm.H NIH med 3H xmm

NIH mN .o mo .H NIH 5N6 boH NIH om .0 OH .H comm

mIH mo.H SUM mIH NH.H :6 mIH mo.H om.m Um

mmImH NH .mH mm . ov mmImH on .mH hN . 3V HmImH mN .mH mm .mm mod
mIo omH 0H.N mlo mmH mN.N mIc mmH vo.N xwwmowcH
on no .N hm .N mIo mo .N Na .N mlo «o .N om . N «Hannah
mlo mN.N mm.N mlo mN.N vH.m mIo mN.N mn.N VHHBEmm
OOHIo mm . NN me .mm 0970 mm .HN mv .mm OOHIo .mH .vN mo .em Eomfinz
COHIo Hm .HN vm .vm 00.70 mm .ON om .mm OOHIo vm .HN mm .vw Enemcflm
: = .. OOHIO mm. .HM mm .mq I “UMHUWHQ
mumsmfiw mo mEmm OQHIo om .mN thm I Sflcwufiz
OOHIo Hm . 0N mN . on oOHION No . mH mm . we OOHIo 00 .MN Hm .HN. and
OOHIo em .mN mm .H@ OOHIo om .vN 3 No OOHIo me .hN mo .oo vqmmmo
mlo HRH Hm.m mlo NH.H omé mIo Nm.H SUN .3va
85.... Bfiflno on x 8:8 nmfiflnm @ x 8%... undergo n... x .mfinfls,

 

Avauc 35.995 mHmumm onwufim

 

AmmNuc page mumsmH>

 

aHNNHG HEB—Jung»; Egflkwlrfluz

 

mommHoce on.» 5 com: moHQMHHm> How mmmcmm guano pom . $63."..ng Baum . mount

.H.m anmB

86

no: 9358 8 0.85398 98 noon aficmenns Pumas uso madam u “and

msmc unaccoom ummuMH ocu cuH3.ds mwox on u com

mHmowd on common pony mocH u mcHummHmucH mom cu mxHH so» mmsmomn u uchom

mmHHugoo H930 5 mango 5H3 ms mode. 8 u 50050

on B one... mfifiod 96: notfl $588. I oooufioz

osmium m on 05:3me 3.3 mLH £3» 38809me on» :23 monsoon .I. umummomsmz

enuccoo moo cH mucmpm HMOHuHHOQ cuH3,d: oomx on n HHom

mmHHucsoo umfio 5.3 90338 95500 H50 5...? as mwox B u 833%

so omHm wagon m . 0.35. can confine/33 nouns on 93H 50» $988 u Ecofioz

>8 32 n .836 x33 8 u xflmm

xmm pompcommmu u xmm

moms pouncedmmu n comm

coHumosoo mo Hm>mH Homecommmu n cm

mom usuocomwmu u mom

mcmewm COHumeuOMcH woundzeHum unmomsmc_mo mocmsomnm u xwmmowcH

mended mono 5H3 memo HocoHumEmufi pom HmcoHuoc usohm 96380me no mogm u 558m
mademm m.oco cuH3,m3mc HmcoHumcuoucH poo HmcoHumc usono mconmooch mo Nocmsvonm u meeEmm
mmsmmmHHoo mH>IMImH> mmmefimfiowfi @930qu n 6853

modded mgnmnmfi/ mmmcomfiomfi. owl/Housed u :58ch

umoomsmc m5 Sum 3383qu m0 $983 pmmmHE unmomsmc m0 #598 u poouumHo

ammomswc HmcoHuoc m .mficgm umfi ou mmgflcmuum u ~835qu

cocoons 8:3 mews HmsoHumc m5 8 owe/Hm .mHHmdms 53:33 I. uu<

pHuoz ocu pom muucsoo who cH co mcHom m.umc3 nacho mama How cOHmH>onu co Nocwocwdms u voodoo

 

W553 HMCOflMC $5 B @330 MO 33% H SUMO umHme

i

.. .. o.HIo.o mmH. mend I 85g

.. .. OONIo mh.mm 0N.mm I E

= = : 00mlo MH . mHH mm . ¢NH I 0mm
mum3mH> mm meow oovlo mm.mm 5.0.th I OMcH
OHIO SUN mmé OHIO mm.N :omNo OHIO 3.34 HEN HMOwHuDH.
OONIo mmdm mm.mMH OONIo mH.mm mm.mMH QONIo mmHv NdeH 5m
NHIo Nv.m mm.m NHIo Hv.m >06 NHIo Ne.m mm.m MHNUDH.
.30.."qu

Afibcoov H.m anmB

87

mung
3.

 

48ch chHugHuQ: coHuHmfiaooISHuQD0mcH mo 828p u 855.er
women." mcoflmewflg m>HmomH5m n #955

$5 cowmumfiqsgmmuomu u com

x85 BananIEUnfiomfi u 85

8.383 §H§cmo§cux§§§u§g
x85 manganese @388 u fin

x85 mconmcomHo new: no baseman u x38.

7.03903 H.m mHQmB

88

The third set of comparisons revolved around how in-
formed respondents perceived themselves to be about national
and world events. Viewers perceived themselves as usually
more informed than non-viewers. When asked how informed
they perceived themselves to be about national and inter-
national events, viewers averaged 73.5 (100 equals fully
informed); non-viewers averaged 59.2. Additionally, viewers
perceived themselves as slightly more informed about
national and world news than their friends or colleagues.
Where zero equals much less informed and 100 equals much
more informed, viewers averaged 68.9 vis a vis their friends
and 68.5 vis a vis their colleagues. Non-viewers averaged
64.4 when compared with friends and 64.0 when compared with
colleagues. Finally, viewers perceived themselves as more
informed about that day's national and international news;
whereas viewers averaged 63.9 (100 equals fully informed),
non-viewers averaged only 49.7. Hypothesis 1 tests the

accuracy of this last perception.

Hypothesis 1

 

Newscast viewers will recall more news
items than non-viewers.

The early evening national newscast is not the only
source providing information about the day's national and
international events; regularly scheduled newscasts and
Special bulletins on radio and television, interpersonal

sources, and to some extent newspapers diffuse the day's

89
news to the public. As such, even non-viewers were expected
to recall seeing or hearing about a few of the items on
each evening's news recall test.

Viewers recalled an average of 6.280 of the 10 news
items selected for each day's news recall segment of the
test instrument. Non-viewers were able to recall 2.641 news
items. (See Table 3.2) The difference between viewer and
non-viewer recall scores was statistically significant
(t=15.60, p<.01). Viewers reported having been previously
exposfied to 1.358 news items that they recalled seeing or
hearing on the newscast. (For viewers, the correlation be-
tween prior exposure and number of items recalled was .2679,
p<.01). Even when subtracting this figure from the total
number of items recalled, viewers recalled an average of

4.921 news items from the newscast.l

 

1No formal predictions were offered about the rela-
tionship between viewer demographic attributes and the number
of news items recalled. However, this researcher anticipated
that males and the more educated would recall more than
their counterparts, thus potentially confounding the rela-
tionship between reasons for viewing the news and number of
news items recalled. Recall scores were not significantly
different on the basis of education. (Men did recall signifi-
cantly more news items than women. Men recalled an average
of 6.606 news items; women recalled an average of 5.976
[t=2.06, t<.05].) However, differences in recall on the
basis of sex of the respondent did not meaningfully alter the
data assessed in the examination of the hypotheses in this
study. This researcher did not anticipate significant
differences in recall based on respondent age or race and
they did not exist in the data.

90

Table 3.2. Comparison between Viewers and Non—Viewers;

Number of News Items Recalled

 

Non-Viewers Viewers

 

 

Type of Recall (n=221) (n=243)
Unaided recall a 1.246
Aided with details provided

by the respondent 0.184 1.742
Aided without details

provided by the respondent 2.456 3.292
Total number of items recalled 2.641 6.280*

 

anot assessed
*
t=15.60, p<.01 (one-tailed)

Several additional points about the recall scores are

worthy of notation.

(1) Of the 6.280 items viewers recalled, only 1.246

(2)

items were recalled in the unaided recall situ-
ation. This is consistent with the data provided
by Stern (1971); without aid, his respondents
recalled an average of 1.2 news items.

Viewers were able to provide significantly more
additional accurate details about news stories
whose headlines were provided to them than non-
viewers (t=ll.12, p<.01). Viewers were able to
provide additional details for 20% of the news
stories they were originally unable to recollect
without aid. For non-viewers, the figure was

less than 2%.

(3)

(4)

91
In the aided recall without additional details
provided situation, viewers recalled signifi-
cantly more items than non-viewers (t=4.55;
p<.01). Thus, while non-viewers were only able
to recall 31% of the news items available in this
type of recall situation (those items that they
did not already recall), viewers were able to
recall 47% of those items available.
Time of interview did not appear to influence re-
call; recall rates for viewers hovered around
60% throughout each evening's 1 3/4 hours inter-
viewing sessions. (See Table 3.3) However,
there was more variance in recall rates across

day of interview. (See Table 3.4)

 

 

Table 3.3 Viewer Number of Items Recalled by Time of
Intervrew
i Number of Items Recalled
Time (maximum possible = 10)
7:15-7:30 (n=13) 6.2
7:30-8:00 (n=43) 6.3
8:00-8:30 (n=56) 5.9
8:30-9:00 (n=7l) 6.3
9:00-9:30 (n=57) 6.6

 

92

Table 3.4. Viewer Number of Items Recalled by Day of

 

 

Interview

X Number of Items Recalled

Day Number (maximum possible = 10)
l (n=25) 6.68
2 (n=26 6.62
3 (n=29) 6.31
4 (n=27) 7.50
5 (n=29) 5.79
6 (n=44) 5.84
7 (n=36) 5.81
8 (n=26) 6.24

 

Hypothesis 2a

 

The greater the strength of information-
acquisition motivations for viewing the news,
the greater the number of news items recalled.

Stated simply, this hypothesis predicts that the more
one turns to the news for information, the more information
he or she will retain from the newscast.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
between strength of information-acquisition motivations and
number of news items recalled was .1117 (p<.05). Informa-
tion-acquisition and recreation/diversion motivation indices
were related to each other (.2194, p<.01). When recreation/
diversion motivations were controlled, the first order par-

tial correlation between information—acquisition motivations

and number of items recalled was .1563 (p<.01).

93
In addition to the correlational measures just pro-
vided, a t-test was used to examine differences in recall
scores based on a median split on the independent variable

(median=287.8). (See Figure 3.1)

 

 

Group 1
HI i information-acquisition
motivation score = 352.7
Information- (n=1l9)
Acquisition
Motivations
Group 2_
L0 X information-acquisition

motivation score = 202.0
(n=ll6)

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 Median Split on Information-
Acquisition Motivations
Those falling above the median recalled an average of 6.487
news items. Those below the median averaged 6.096. The
differences in scores was not statistically significant
(t=l.29).

The t-test for differences in recall scores based on
the median split was seen as a conservative assessment of
the relationship being tested. The correlation examination
appeared to provide a better (and more liberal) indication
of the strength of the relationship tested. Given the sta-
tistical significance of the correlation and the direction
of the recall rates based on the median split, this hy-

pothesis appears to be supported.

94

Hypothesis 2b

 

The greater the strength of recreation/
diversion motivations for viewing the
news, the greater the number of news
items recalled.

Recreation/diversion motivations were not expected to
be as strongly related to recall as information-acquisition
motivations (see Hypothesis 2c). Nonetheless, this re-
searcher expected that the more one turned to the news for
recreation or diversionary purposes, the more information
he or she would retain from the newscast.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient be—
tween strength of recreation/diversion motivations and re-
call was -.l749 (p<.01). When information-acquisition
motivations were controlled, the first order partial cor-
relation between strength of recreation/diversion motivations
and number of news items recalled was -.2057 (p<.01). Thus,
while the relationship was statistically significant, it was
in the direction opposite to that predicted.

A median split on the independent variable (median =
101.1) provided another view of the unanticipated negative
relationship. (See Figure 3.2) Those falling above the
median average 5.982 news items. Those falling below the

median averaged 6.587. The difference in scores was sta-

tistically significant (t=2.00, p<.05).

95

Recreation/Diversion Motivations

 

HI LO
Group 1 Group 2
HI 2 recreation/ i recreation/
diversion diversion
score=223.7 score=44.0
LO (n=113) (n=122)

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.2 Median Split on Recreation/Diversion
Motivations

Based on the negative relationship between strength of
recreation/diversion motivations and recall, Hypothesis 2b

was not supported.

Hypothesis 2c

 

Strength of information-acquisition motiva-
tions is a stronger predictor/will account
for more of the variance in news recall than
strength of recreation/diversion motivations.
This hypothesis addresses itself to the issue of pre-
dictive utility; the position taken is that knowledge of an
individual's strength of information-acquisition motiva-
tions will enable one to better predict that individual's
recall score than knowledge of the strength of his/her
recreation/diversion motivations for watching the same
newscast.
Both indices were entered into a multiple regression

equation predicting the number of news items recalled. The

simple correlation between strength of recreation-diversion

96

motivations and the number of items recalled was -.l749
(p<.01); the corresponding beta weight was -.2095 (p<.01).
The simple correlation between strength of information-
acquisition motivations and the number of items recalled
was .1117 (p<.05); its corresponding beta weight was .1577
(p<.05). Thus, while both sets of correlations and beta
‘weights were small but statistically significant, strength
of recreation/diversion motivations was a better predictor
of an individual's number of news items recalled.

Based on the correlation and correSponding beta

weights, Hypothesis 2c was not supported.

Hypothesis 2d
The greater the dominance of information-
acquisition motivations for viewing the
news, the greater the number of news index
recalled.
Those seeking predominantly information-acquisition
gratifications from the national newscasts were expected
to recall a greater number of news items broadcast than
those who were equally motivated by information-acquisition
and recreation/diversion motivations or those primarily moti-
vated by the latter group of motivations.
To test this hypothesis, dominance of information-
acquisition motivations (defined as the ratio of the indi-
vidual's average score on the information-acquisition items

to the sum of his/her average scores on the information-

acquisition and recreation/diversion indices) was correlated

with number of news items recalled.

relation coefficient was .2010 (p<.01).

97

The resulting cor-

In addition to the correlation analysis, this research—

er examined the mean rates of recall for 3 of the 4 groups

created by median splits on the information-acquisition and

. . . . . 2
recreatron/d1versron indices.

HI
Information-
Acquisition
Motivations

LO

Figure 3.3.

(See Figure 3.3)

Recreation/Diversion Motivations

 

 

 

 

HI LO
Group 2: Group 1:
the information the information
and recreation seekers
seekers
(3:67) (nesz)
X dominance X dominance
score = .676 score = .908
Group 3:
the recreation
seekers
(g=46)
I X dominance
2 score = .548

 

 

Breakdown of Viewers Based on Dominance
of Information-Acquisition Motivations

2The casual viewer was excluded from this analysis;
(based on the median splits, there was no way of predicting
the extent to which these peOple depended on information-
acquisition motivations.

98
The information seekers, by definition those most dependent
on information-acquisition gratifications, were expected to
recall more news items than either of the other two groups:
with the information and recreation seekers expected to re—
call more than the recreation seekers.

Respondents in group 1 (the information seekers) re-
called an average of 6.769 news items. Those in group 2
(the information and recreation seekers), and 3 (the recre-
ation seekers) recalled 6.269 and 5.556 items respectively.
The difference among these mean scores was significant
(F=3.53, p<.05).

Based on the two tests of the data, Hypothesis 2d

appears to have empirical support.

Hypothesis 23

 

Viewers motivated by information-acqui-
sition and/or recreation/diversion moti-
vations will recall more news items than
viewers not motivated by either dimension
of motivations.

Previous hypotheses focused on the relationships among
particular sets of motivations and news recall. This hy-
pothesis focuses on the relationship between strength of all
measured motivations and the number of news items recalled.
‘TwO tests of the hypothesis were conducted.

The first test of the relationship involved the compu-
tation of a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.

IPhe correlation between strength of purposive motivations

‘and number of news items recalled was —.0396. The correlation

99

was in the wrong direction but not significant. Given the
positive relationship between strength of information-acqui-
sition motivations and recall and the slightly stronger
negative relationship between strength of recreation/diver-
sion motivations and recall, the strength and direction of
this correlation makes intuitive as well as empirical sense.

Recall that the median information-acquisition score
was 287.8 and the median recreation/diversion score was 101.1.
In the information-acquisition-recreation/diversion paradigm,
3 of the 4 groups of viewers (the information seekers, the
information and recreation seekers, and the recreation
seekers) ranked above the median on at least one of the two
underlying motivation clusters. For the second test of this
hypothesis, these three sets of viewers were combined to
form the highly motivated group of viewers (mean purposive
motivation score = 112.5)3; their counterparts were the
casual viewers (mean purposive motivation score = 55.9).
(See Figure 3.4) The highly motivated group recalled an
average of 6.232 news items. The low motivation viewers
recalled an average of 6.449.

Strength of purposive motivations and news recall appear

to function almost entirely independently of each other.

 

3 . . . . .

The reader 18 reminded that purp031ve motivation scores
were operationalized as an individual's average information-
acquisition score plus his/her average recreation/diversion
score.

Informa-
tion-

Acqui-
sition

Motiva-
tions

100

Recreation/Diversion Motivations

 

 

HI LO
HI High Motivation Group (n=165)
X purposive motivation score = 112.5
Low Motivation Group
LO (n=70)
X purposive motivation
score = 55.9

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.4. Breakdown of Viewers into High and

Low Motivation Groups

As such, Hypothesis 2e was not confirmed.

To summarize, these are the results of the tests of

the hypotheses dealing with recall:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Viewers recalled an average of 63% of the
news items selected from each evening's
newscast for each evening's news recall
test. Non-viewers were aware of 26% of
the news items selected.

Strength of recreation/diversion motiva-
tions explained more of the variance in
news recall than strength of information-
acquisition motivations, although the
relationship between strength of recre—
ation/diversion motivations and recall was
negative, and the relationship between
strength of information-acquisition moti-
vations and recall was positive.

Dominance of information-acquisition
motivations was positively related to the
number of news items recalled; those
turning to the national news primarily
because of information-acquisition moti-
vations recalled more news items than
those equally motivated by both clusters
of motivations or primarily motivated by
the recreation/diversion cluster.

Strength of purposive motivations (both in-
formation—acquisition and recreation/di—
version) and news recall were unrelated.

101

Hypothesis 3a

 

The greater the frequency of interpersonal
discussions about national and world news,

the greater the strength of information-acqui-
sition motivations for watching the news.

It was anticipated that frequency of discussions about
national and world events and strength of information-acqui-
sition motivations for turning to the national news would
vary directly with each other. The Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient between the frequency of discussion
index and the information-acquisition index was positive,
and while small, statistically significant (.1131, p<.05).
Table 3.5 indicates that the correlation between the fre-
quency of discussion index and each of the components of
the dependent measure varied considerably.

Table 3.5. Correlation between Frequency of Interpersonal
Discussions about the National News and Strength

of Information-Acquisition Motivations for
Watching the News

 

Information-Acquisition Correlation
Motivation Coefficient

 

to keep up with our country's relations
with other countries .0383

to keep up with political events in our

 

country .l707**
to keep up with events in other countries .0975*
to keep up with the latest economic news .0689

*

p<.05

*

*
p<.01

102

Correlation coefficients also were computed for the
relationship between each of the components of the frequency
of discussion index and the dependent measure. While fre-
quency of discussion with friends fluctuated almost inde-
pendently of strength of information-acquisition motivations
(.0684), the relationship between frequency of family dis-
cussions about national and international events with
strength of information-acquisition motivations was statis-
tically significant (.1414, p<.05).

Additionally, this hypothesis was examined in light of
median splits on the independent variables. The median score
on the frequency of discussion index was 6.01 (scores ranged
from 0 to 12: mean score was 6.07). Respondents scoring
above the median scored an average of 296.0 on the informa-
tion-acquisition index. Those falling below the median
averaged 265.3 on the dependent measure. This difference was
in the hypothesized direction and statistically significant
(t=2.65, p<.01).

In short, the statistical significance of the correla-

tion and the t-test suggests support of this hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3b

 

The less the perceived knowledge vis-a-vis
friends and colleagues about national and
world news, the greater the strength of
information-acquisition motivations for
watching the news.

Viewers who perceived themselves as less informed than

their friends and colleagues were expected to use the national

103

newscasts as a modus Operandi for improving their relative
level of knowledge. As such, these two variables were hy-
pothesized as varying inversely with each other. However,
when respondents were divided into those who perceived they
knew less than, about the same amount as, and more than
their friends and colleagues, the average information-acqui-
sition motivation scores were 238.4, 290.3, and 286.0 re-
spectively. The Pearson product-moment correlation coef-
ficient between the independent and dependent variables
reflected these figures--+.3858 (p<.01). Table 3.6 indicates
that the correlation between the independent variable and
each of the components of the dependent measure was positive
and statistically significant.
Table 3.6. Correlations Among Perceived Knowledge Levels

Vis-a-Vis Friends and Colleagues and Strength

of Information—Acquisition Motivations for
Watching the News

 

Information-Acquisition Correlation
Motivation Coefficient

 

to keep up with our country's relations
with other countries .3299*

to keep up with political events in our

country .3428*
to keep up with events in other countries .3518*
to keep up with the latest economic news .2795*

 

*
p<.01

104

Correlation coefficients also were computed for the
relationship between each of the two components of the in-
dependent variable and strength of information-acquisition
motivations. The correlation between perceived knowledge
level vis-a-vis friends and strength of information-acqui-
sition motivations was .3323 (p<.01); the correlation be-
tween perceived knowledge level vis-a-vis colleagues and
the dependent variable was .4332 (p<.01).

It appears as if those already in the know turn to the
news in order to retain their lofty relative knowledge levels.

As such, Hypothesis 3b was not supported.

Hypothesis 3c

 

The greater the dependence on televised news

for information about the nation and the world,

the greater the strength of information-acqui-

sition motivations for viewing the national news.

It was predicted that those heavily dependent on tele-

vision for national and international news would turn to the
newscasts more strongly motivated by information-acquisition
reasons than those less dependent on television for such
information. A Pearson product—moment correlation coeffici-
ent was computed to ascertain the existence of the posited
relationship; the coefficient, .3045 (p<.01), indicated a
strong relationship between these two variables. Table 3.7
Specifies the relationships among dependence on television

for national and international news and each of the four

components in the information-acquisition index.

105

Table 3.7. Correlations Among Dependence on Television for
News about the Nation and the World and Strength
of Information-Acquisition Motivations

 

Information-Acquisition Correlation
Motivation Coefficient

 

to keep up with our country's relations
with other countries .3446*

to keep up with political events in our

 

country .2109*
to keep up with events in other countries .2057*
to keep up with the latest economic news .2768*
*

p<.01

The relationship between the independent and dependent
variables is more graphically depicted when average scores on
the dependent variable are compared on the basis of a median
split on the independent variable. Television was the pri-
mary source of national and international news for most re-
Spondents; where 0 equaled not at all dependent on television
for such news and 100 equaled total dependence on it, the
mean response was 62.4 and the median was 59.7. Those fall-
ing below the median (those less dependent on television for
national and international news) placed a value of 251.8
(maximum = 400) on information-acquisition motivations.

Their counterparts, heavily dependent on television for news,
averaged 298.2. The difference in the scores was significant

(t=4.16, p<.01).

106
Hypothesis BC was supported. Before examining the next
hypothesis however, it should be noted that dependence on
television for national and international news was equally
related to strength of recreation/diversion motivations--
.2936. Thus, it appears that the more dependent one is on
television for news, the greater the strength of both these

motivations for watching the newscast.

Hypothesis 4

 

The stronger the purposive motivations for
viewing the national news, the more frequent
the viewing of the national news.

As results relating to the previous hypothesis indicated,
strength of information-acquisition motivations was positive-
ly related to a (conceptually) antecedent cognitive variable,
dependence on television for national and international news.
Here, the focus is on the relationship between strength of
purposive motivations and a (conceptually) subsequent be-
havior--frequency of exposure to the national news.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient be—
tween strength of purposive motivations and frequency of
national news viewing was low but statistically significant
(.1462, p<.01). The correlation between strength of infor-
mation-acquisition motivations and the criterian variable was
.1878 (p<.01). However, the correlation between strength of

recreation/diversion motivations and frequency of viewing the

national news was .0350. Table 3.8 provides the relationships

107
among each of the items in the purposive motivation index
and the dependent measure.

Hypothesis 4 posited a positive relationship between
both motivation indices and frequency of national news
viewing. The tabled data indicate that the entire relation-
ship is located within the information-acquisition motiva-
tions. As such, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Table 3.8. Correlations Among Purposive Motivations and
Frequency of Viewing the National News

 

 

Correlation
Purposive Motivation Coefficient
Information-Acquisition Index .1878**
to keep up with our country's relations
with other countries .2195**
to keep up with political events in our
country .l924**
to keep up with events in other countries .1143*
to keep up with the latest economic news .0949
Recreation/Diversion Index .0350
to relax after a hard day .0809
because you like to watch television
and there's nothing else on -.0038
because when the newscasters talk,
it's like listening to a friend .0590
because you have nothing else to do -.0214
finding out what's happening adds
some excitement to your life .0425

 

*
p<.05

*
p<.01

*

108

Hypothesis 5a

 

The greater the dominance of information-

acquisition reasons for viewing the news,

the greater the attentiveness to the news-
cast.

Those turning to the news primarily for information-
acquisition purposes were expected to be more attentive to
the newscast than those whose information and recreation/
diversion motivations were more balanced. The Pearson pro-
duct-moment correlation coefficient computed to test this
hypothesis indicated a relationship between these two vari—
ables but in the direction Opposite to what was predicted.
The correlation coefficient was -.l975 (p<.01). Taken at
face value, the correlation suggests that the more reliant

on information-acquisition motivations, the less attentive

one is to the newscast. Hypothesis 5a was not supported.

Hypothesis 5b

 

The greater the dominance of information-
acquisition reasons for viewing the news,
the fewer the number of distractions from
the news.
It was predicted that the more exclusively one watched
the news seeking information-acquisition gratifications,
the less frequently he or she would be interrupted from
viewing that evening's newscast. While respondents reported
missing an average of almost one half of the newscast (X'=

43.8 where 0 equaled not missing any of the newscast and

100 equaled missing all of it), the Pearson product—moment

109
correlation coefficient (-.0356) indicated that those who
watched primarily for information-acquisition purposes were
no less likely to be distracted. The minuteness of the cor-
relation suggested that the hypothesis be dropped as ill-
conceived without any additional analyses undertaken.

Hypothesis 5b was not supported.

Hypothesis 6

 

The greater the dominance of information-
acquisition motivations for watching the
news, the more frequent the rate of news-
cast stimulated information-seeking
behaviors.

Those turning to the news primarily for information-
acquisition purposes were seen as most likely to engage in
information-seeking behaviors stimulated by the newscast.
To test this hypothesis, a Pearson product-moment correla-
tion coefficient was computed. While the correlation was
significant (p<.05) and in the predicted direction, its
strength (.1203) indicated a marginal relationship between
these variables.

In a second test of this relationship, respondent
scores on the criterion variable were compared based on a
median split on the predictor variable. The median dom-
inance of information-acquisition motivations score was .775.
Viewers scoring above the median reported that they were

stimulated to seek additional information 2.36 times per

week. Viewers scoring below the median reported newscast

110

stimulated information seeking 2.10 times per week. This

difference approached statistical difference (t=l.50).

On the basis of both tests, Hypothesis 6 appeared to

be supported.

To summarize, these are the results of the tests of

the hypotheses dealing with selected interrelationships

among the components of the uses and gratifications model:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Frequency of interpersonal discussions about
national and international events was positively
related to strength of information—acquisition
motivations for watching the national news.

Perceived level of knowledge about national and
international news vis-a-vis friends and col-
leagues was positively related to strength of
information-acquisition motivations for watching
the national news.

Dependence on television for information about
national and international news events was
positively related to strength of information-
acquisition motivations for watching the
national news.

Strength of information-acquisition motivations
was positively related to frequency of exposure to
national news; strength of recreation/diversion
motivations and frequency of exposure were un-
related.

Dominance of information-acquisition motiva-
tions for watching the news was negatively
related to attentiveness to the newscast and
unrelated to the amount of the newscast missed
because of distractions from it.

Dominance of information-acquisition motiva-
tions was positively related to newscast
stimulated information-seeking.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

This chapter is divided into two sections. In the
first section, results relating to each hypothesis will be
summarized. The second section will consist of discussions
on the recall of televised news and the utility/validity of
the uses and gratifications approach to this particular media
effect. In that section, post hoc explanations will be

offered for the recall hypotheses that were not supported.

SUMMARY
Each of the hypotheses tested is listed below. Accom-
panying each hypothesis is a statement condensing the empirical
evidence relating to it.

H1: Newscast viewers will recall more news
items than non-viewers.

Viewers recalled an average of 63% of the news items
selected for each day's news recall test; non-viewers were
able to recall only 26% of these news items. Even when con-
trolling for viewer prior exposure to the news items, viewers
recalled substantially more items than non-viewers. The hy-

pothesis was supported.
lll

112

Hza: The greater the strength of information-
acquisition motivations for viewing the
news, the greater the number of news items
recalled.

Highly information-acquisition motivated viewers re-
called approximately one-half news item more than those less
motivated by that cluster of motivations. This difference
approached significance. The correlation between the two
variables was statistically significant. The hypothesis was
supported.

H2b: The greater the strength of recreation/di—
version motivations for viewing the news, the
greater the number of news items recalled.

Highly recreation/diversion motivated viewers recalled
approximately one-half news item less than those less moti-
vated by recreation/diversion motivations. This difference
was statistically significant, as was the negative correla-
tion between the two variables. The hypothesis was not
supported.

H2 : Strength of information-acquisition moti-

c . . . .
vations is a stronger predictor/will
account for more of the variance in news
recall than strength of recreation/
diversion motivations.

Strength of information-acquisition motivations was
positively related to number of news items recalled; strength
of recreation/diversion motivations was negatively related
to the dependent measure. The stronger of these two rela-
tionships was the one between strength of recreation/di-

version motivations and recall. The hypothesis was not

supported.

113

The greater the dominance of infor-
mation-acquisition motivations for
viewing the news, the greater the
number of news items recalled.

2d:

The correlation between dominance of information-
acquisitidn motivations and number of news items recalled
was positive and statistically significant. Those turning
to the news primarily because of information-acquisition
motivations recalled approximately 1 1/2 more items than
the group of respondents turning to the news primarily be-
cause of recreation/diversion motivations. The hypothesis
was supported.

H2 : Viewers motivated by information- '

e acquisition and/or recreation/d1versron
motivations will recall more news
items than viewers not motivated by
either dimension of motivations.

There was virtually no difference in recall scores be-
tween high and low motivated groups of viewers. The hy-
pothesis was not supported.

H3a: The greater the frequency of inter-
personal discussions about national and
international news, the greater the
strength of information-acquisition
motivations for watching the news.

Viewers reporting at least three interpersonal discus-
sions per week about national and international news scored
an average of 296.0 on the information-acquisition index
(maximum = 400). Viewers reporting less than three inter-
personal discussions per week about the news scored signifi-

cantly less--265.3. The difference between these scores was

significant, as was the correlation between the two variables.

114
The hypothesis was supported.
H The less the perceived knowledge
vis-a-vis friends and colleagues
about national and world news,
the greater the strength of infor-

mation-acquisition motivations for
watching the news.

3b:

The correlation coefficient between these two variables
was significant but in the opposite direction. Viewers who
perceived themselves as more knowledgeable than their
friends and colleagues were more strongly motivated by in-
formation-acquisition reasons than those who perceived
themselves as less knowledgeable. The hypothesis was not
supported.

H3c: The greater the dependence on television
news for information about the nation and
the world, the greater the strength of
information-acquisition motivations for
viewing the news.

The average viewer perceived him/herself as fairly de-
pendent on television for national and international news.
The group more heavily dependent on television news reported
greater strength of information-acquisition motivations than
their counterparts. The correlation between the variables
was significant. The hypothesis was supported.

H4: The stronger the purposive motivations for
viewing the national news, the more fre-
quent the viewing of the national news.

The correlation coefficient between the two variables

was positive and statistically significant. However, while

strength of information—acquisition motivations was

115
positively related to frequency of national news viewing,
strength of recreation/diversion motivations and the cri-
terion variable functioned independently of each other.
The hypothesis was not supported.

HSa: The greater the dominance of information—
acquiSition motivations for View1ng the
news, the greater the attentiveness to
the newscast.

The empirical evidence indicated a significant rela-
tionship opposite to what was predicted; those less reliant
on information-acquisition motivations were more attentive
to the newscast. The hypothesis was not supported.

H The greater the dominance of information-

acquisition reasons for viewing the news,
the fewer the number of distractions from
the news.

5b:

Viewers reported missing almost half of each evening's
newscast. The correlation between the two variables indi-
cated that those turning to the news primarily because of
information-acquisition motivations would be no less likely
to be distracted than their counterparts. The hypothesis
was not supported.

H6: The greater the dominance of information-
acquisition motivations for watching the
news, the more frequent the rate of news-
cast stimulated information-seeking be-
haviors.

Viewers scoring above the median dominance of informa-
tion-acquisition motivations score reported slightly more
frequent newscast stimulated information-seeking behaviors.

The correlation between the variables was statistically sig-

nificant. The hypothesis was supported.

116
In short, 13 hypotheses were tested. Six received

empirical support; seven were not supported.

DISCUSSION
This section is divided into four parts. First, we
will discuss the ability of television newscasts to transmit
current events information to the viewing public. Subse-
quent to that, we will focus on the utility and validity of
the theoretical perspective taken and methodology employed

in this study.

News Recall

 

In trying to assess the ability of televised national
newscasts to transmit current events information to the view-
ing public, it was suggested that the number of news items
recalled was a function not only of exposure to the newscast
but also of (1) the question format used, (2) the method of
assessing recall, (3) the type of news event to be recalled,
(4) the amount of time between exposure to the newscast and
measurement of recall, (5) exposure to the news items prior
to the newscast, (6) level of attentiveness to the newscast,
and (7) the motivations stimulating exposure to the newscast.
The interaction between type of news event and recall was
not investigated in this study. Of those investigated, the
only interaction that was ESE significant was (4)—-the amount
of time between exposure to the newscast and measurement of

recall. A brief review of three of the significant

117
interactions will be instructive for the ensuing point on
the impact of these newscasts.

Interaction between question format and recall: When
asked, "What stories can you recall from tonight's national
newscast?", viewers were able to recall an average of only
1.246 news items, or 12% of the news items covered on the
recall test. When viewer memories were refreshed by the
interviewer (e.g., "Do you recall the story about the 4
Spanish Air Force jets that collided with each other over
the Mediterranian Sea today?"), viewers were able to provide
meaningful details for an additional 1.742 items. Thus,
viewers were able to recall almost 30% of the items covered.

Interaction between assessment of recall and recall:

In the unaided and aided with additional details provided
levels of recall, reSpondents were required to provide some
information about an event before they would be credited
with recall. Using this criterion, viewers were able to re-
call an average of 2.988 news items. However, with a more
liberal operationalization (respondent acknowledgement that
he or she saw/heard on the newscast the item mentioned by
the interviewer), recall jumped to 6.28.

Interaction between attention and recall: The correla-
tion between attention to the newscast and number of news
items recalled was .2606 (p<.01); the more attentive one was
to the newscast, the greater the number of news items re-

called. The correlation between the amount of the newscast

118
missed because of distractions and the number of items re-
called was -.2551 (p<.01); the greater the proportion of
the newscast missed, the fewer the number of news items
recalled.

Given the three interactions just discussed, it is
clear that an evaluation of the ability of televised news-
casts to transmit news/current events information to the
viewing public is left to the methodologies and whims of
media researchers, analysts, and critics. Is television
news an effective conduit of current events information?
The answer depends on the type of recall questions asked,
the criteria used by the researcher to assess recall, and
taking into consideration the fact that viewers aren't/
are unable to be fully attentive to all of the newscast.
When stringent criteria are applied, recall scores suggest
that national newscasts are relatively ineffective vehicles
of information transmission. When more liberal criteria are
applied, recall scores suggest that these newscasts are
potent purveyors of news information.

This researcher is in favor of using liberal standards
to evaluate the role of televised newscasts as transmitters
of information. Two arguments are offered in support of
this position. First, without the provision of a frame of
reference (defined as news item headline read to the re-
spondent), recall is seen as more a test of mental agility

than amount of information stored. Second, this researcher

119

posits that one presents a biased indicator of newscast
information transmission abilities when one does not dis-
close that the number of news items recalled is a function
of the number of news items originally seen or heard on the
broadcast.

Given this researcher's bias, television newscasts are
seen as effective conveyors of current events information
to the viewing public; viewers apparently can remember (with
aid) almost every news item they hear and/or see on the
early evening national newscasts.

Utilityiof the Uses and Gratifications Approach in Pre—
dicting Recall

 

 

When examined from an absolutist perspective, the data
indicate that the predictive utility of the approach is
marginal; the beta weights for the information-acquisition
and recreation/diversion indices were .1577 (p<.05) and
-.2095 (p<.01). Combined, these indices accounted for only
5.4% of the variance in recall scores. Given such data, a
researcher doing bivariate analysis might well conclude that
the uses and gratifications approach is just another, if not
more difficult, method of assessing a small proportion of
the variance in some criterion variable. Such is one per-
spective. This researcher would like to offer another.

In this age of multivariate analysis, the value of a
variable is determined not only by its unique contribution

to another variable but also by the extent of its

120

contribution in comparison to and in conjunction with other

 

 

predictor variables. This researcher posits that when moti-
vations are evaluated by these contrast and combination
criteria, the uses and gratifications approach takes on more
value.

Aside from measuring motivations, the final test instru-
ment included measures of the following (alternative) pre-
dictors of recall: demographic indicators, patterns of
exposure to the national news, dependence on television for
news about the nation and the world, comparative perceived
informedness about national and international events, and
the frequency of interpersonal discussions about such news.
To test the relative value of the uses and gratifications
approach, its unique contribution will be compared with the
unique contributions of these other independent variables.
Then, the combined contributions of the motivation and non-
motivation predictors will be examined.

Four demographic indicators were measured-~respondent
age, sex, level of education, and race. The multiple cor-
relation between these variables and number of items re-
called was .2503; combined, these variables accounted for
6.3% of the variance in recall scores. Sex was the best
demographic predictor, having a standardized beta weight of
-.l780 (p<.01). While the beta weight of age also was
significant (.1732, p<.05), the betas for level of education

and race were not.

121

The degree of attentiveness to the newscast and the
amount of the newscast missed because of distractions were
better predictors of recall than respondent demographic
characteristics. The multiple R between attentiveness, dis-
tractions and number of news items recalled was .3458; these
variables accounted for 12% of the variance. The beta
weights for both exposure variables were significant at the
.01 level; the beta for attentiveness was .2773 and for dis—
tractions -.2257.

While dependence on television for information about
the nation and the world was strongly related to information-
acquisition motivations for viewing the national news (.3045,
[p<.01]), it was virtually independent of the number of news
items recalled--its Pearson product-moment correlation co-
efficient with recall was -.0291. As such, it was of al-
most no value in predicting recall.

For the purposes of this analysis, the two items com-
prising the perceived informedness index were entered into
the multiple regression procedure as individual items. The
beta weight for perceived informedness vis-a-vis friends
was -.07l9. The beta weight for perceived informedness vis-
a-vis colleagues was .0320. The multiple correlation be-
tween these two variables and recall accounted for less than
1% of the variance.

Finally, while both frequency of discussion items were

entered into the multiple regression procedure, only the

122
relationship between frequency of news discussions with
one's family and recall was assessed; the other item (fre—
quency of news discussions with one's friends) failed to
meet the minimum statistical criteria for inclusion in the
final regression equation. The resulting correlation be-
between frequency of news discussions with one's family and
news recall was .1288 (p<.05). (The beta weight for this
variable was the same as its correlation coefficient with
recall.)

In short, when the amount of variance accounted for by
other predictors is examined, the 5.4% of the variance ac—
counted for by motivations is not all that low. While two
sets of variables accounted for somewhat more variance than
the motivation items, neither packed the theoretic punch
that the motivation items carried. Thus, in comparison to
other predictor variables, the motivation items fared rela-
tively well. I

Predictor variables don't exist in a vacuum. Instead
they Operate among and through a nexus of other variables
influencing each other's effect on the criterion variable.
The independent impact of each of six sets of predictors of
news recall has just been examined. Now we will describe
the influence of each of the non-motivation predictors when
coupled with the motivation indices.

The multiple correlation of locator and motivation vari-

ables with number of news items recalled was .3640 (p<.01).

123
Together, these variables account for 13.2% of the variance
in recall sources, a figure substantially higher than the
variance accounted for by either one of these groups of vari-
ables individually. The best three predictors of recall were
sex, age, and recreation/diversion motivations, their beta
weights being -.2180, .2195, and -.2190 (all significant at
the .01 level). Information-acquisition motivations were
significant at the .05 level (beta = .1625). The betas for
level of education and race were not significant.

The multiple correlation of the patterns of exposure
and motivation variables with recall was .4069. These vari-
ables accounted for 16.6% of the variance in recall. The
beta weights for attentiveness, distraction, and the
recreation/diversion variables were significant at the .01
level, -.2307, -.2116, and -.l998 respectively. The beta
for the information-acquisition index was .1368 (p<.05).

R values were .2292 for the combined dependence on
television news and motivation variables, .2527 for the per-
ceived informedness and motivation variables, and .2440
(p<.01) for the news discussion and motivation variables.

In short, the joint impact of motivations and each of the
non-motivation variables was greater than either separately.
While motivation and non-motivation variables shared common
variance, each accounted for unique portions of the variance

in recall.

124

. One final comparison is offered. When all five sets
of non-motivation variables were thrown into a multiple re-
gression equation predicting recall, their multiple R was
.5858 (p<.01). When the information-acquisition and recrea-
tion/diversion indices were added, the multiple correlation
increased to .6131 (p<.01). While the beta weight for the
information-acquisition index was not significant (.0751
[fiiY05]), the beta weight for the recreation/diversion
index was (—.1979 [p<.05]). (See Table 4.1)

Predictive utility was the issue that prompted the in-
vestigation and reporting of these multiple correlations
and regression beta weights. Based on the data provided,
it appears that alone, motivations are not powerful pre-
dictors of recall. On the other hand, neither was any other
independent variable analyzed. More importantly, when the
motivation and non-motivation variables were combined, a
meaningful amount of the variance in the criterion measure
was accounted for. Finally, no attempt was made to examine
the relationship between (1) indices of motivations and type
of news story (e.g., to correlate strength of recreation/
diversion motivations with recall of human interest or "soft
news" stories), or (2) individual motivation items and par-
ticular news stories (e.g., to correlatestrength of the
"to keep up with the latest economic news" motivation with
recall of economic news items). This researcher suspects

that tests of those relationships would (1) indicate a

125

 

 

 

Table 4.1. Contributions of Motivation and Non-Motivation
Variables in Predicting Recall
Variab1e* Standardized Beta Multiple R R Square
atention .4182 .39793 .15835
rec -.l979 .47687 .22740
sex -.2409 .52319 .27373
age .1914 .55194 .30464
finform -.2032 .56743 .32198
famtalk .1571 .58448 .34161
ed .0842 .59354 .35229
distract -.ll80 .59883 .35860
depend -.1159 .60577 .36695
info .0751 .61043 .37262
race -.0456 .61182 .37433
winform .0552 .61286 .37559
frdtalk -.0169 .61306 .37585
*
where: atention = attentiveness to that evening's national
newscast

rec = recreation/diversion index

sex = respondent sex

age = respondent age

finform - perceived informedness vis-a-vis friends
famtalk frequency of discussions about national
and international news with one's family
ed = respondent level of education
distract amount of newscast missed because of
distractions from the newscast
depend = dependency on television for news about
what's going on in the country and the
world
information-acquisition index
respondent race
perceived informedness vis-a-vis col-
leagues
frequency of discussions about national
and international news with one's
friends

info
race
winform

frdtalk

 

stronger
(2) sugge

a signifi

relationship between motivations and recall, and
st that the measurement of motivations represents

cant addition in the investigation of media impact.

126

Validity of the Motivation Approach to Learning

 

In the preceding subsection, it was posited that the
uses and gratifications approach was useful in accounting
for additional amountscnfvariance in the dependent media
effect, news recall. In this subsection, we will focus on
the validity of the premise which underlies the approach and
served as the guideline in the development of the hypotheses
tested.

This researcher suggested that at the core of the uses
and gratifications approach was the position, "one learns
best when one is motivated to learn." Based on this premise,
a two by two paradigm of viewers and rates of recall was de-
veloped. The paradigm itself was never formally tested.
Instead, empirical tests were conducted on hypotheses derived
from it. Several of these hypotheses received support,
several others did not. At this point, an examination of
the entire paradigm will be helpful in (l) accounting for the
findings vis-a-vis Hypotheses 2a—2e, and (2) evaluating the
accuracy/utility of the learning theory taken by the uses and
gratifications approach.

Four types of viewers were delineated and four levels
of viewer recall were predicted. Figure 4.1 summarizes those
positions.

It was anticipated that strength of information-acqui-
sition motivations and strength of recreation/diversion moti-

vations both would be positively related to the number of news

127

IExmeathyTfivenflrm

 

 

 

HI 10
HI the:hurmmath1and ‘Uxainfimmmmion
Informatione recreation seeker seeker
Acquisition 2 l
hrmiwmfions
LO the recreation the casual
seamx' vkner
3 4

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 Expected Levels of News Recall Based on

Viewer Type/Type and Strength of News
Viewing Motivations

items recalled. However, while strength of information-ac-

quisition motivations was positively correlated with recall,

its counterpart was even more strongly negatively correlated

with the criterion variable. As such, the order of the rela-

tionships among viewer types was changed. Figure 4.2 pre-

sents the empirically determined order of viewers on the

basis of number of news items recalled.

Recreation/Diversion

 

 

HI ID
'Uxeinflnmatn31and 'Uxainfonmnjon
HI recreation seeker (n=67) seeker (n=52)
)(nmflxm'ofrmws:flxms Xinudxnrofrmmszflxms
Informationr recalled = 6.269 recalled = 6.769
Acmfisidkm. 3 1
thrwfinons the mxxeatflmismeker thecxmmalxdewer
IO _(_n=46) 1n=70)
)(nuflxnrofrrms imam; )(nmflxu'ofrxms flame
recalled = 5.556 recalled = 6.449
4 2

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2. Actual Levels of News Recall Based on
Viewer Type/Type and Strength of News
Viewing Motivations

128

Three of the four types of viewers (the information
seekers, the information and recreation seekers, and the
recreation seekers) were ordered as predicted. However,
while the casual viewer was expected to recall the least,
that viewer type recalled more than those scoring above the
median on both the information-acquisition and recreation/
diversion indices (the information and recreation seekers)
and those scoring above the median only on the recreation/
diversion index (the recreation seekers).l

The ordering of viewers on the basis of number of
items recalled was interpreted as indicating that recrea-
tion/diversion motivations interfere with the acquisition
of information. This interpretation would account for the
information and recreation seekers recalling less than the
information seekers,yet more than the recreation seekers.
The information and recreation seekers were more distracted

by recreation motivations than the information seekers.

 

1The 4 viewer types recalled differential numbers of
news items which they heard about prior to the newscast.
The information and recreation seekers recalled 1.54 news
items which they had previously heard; the corresponding
number for the recreation seekers was 1.08. Between these
extremes were the information seekers and the casual viewers
who recalled 1.39 and 1.43 previously heard news items re-
spectively. However, even when subtracting these figures
from their recall scores,the order of viewers on the basis
of recall remained unchanged. The information seekers still
recalled the most number of news items (5.38), followed by
the casual viewers (5.02), the information and recreation
seekers (4.73) and the recreation seekers (4.48L in that
order.

129
On the other hand, while the information and recreation
seekers and the recreation seekers had equal amounts of
recreation/diversion motivations, the information seekers
were able to recall more because of the effects of their
stronger information—acquisition motivations. Finally, this
interpretation would account for the casual viewer's recall
score by positing that while their strength of information-
acquisition motivations was low, strength of the counter-
acting recreation/diversion motivations also was low. In
essence, the casual viewer turns to the newscast more re-
ceptive to more kinds of stimuli and gratifications than
those who turn to the news because of strong recreation/
diversion motivations.

This interpretation provides a theoretic rationale for
the positive relationship between dominance of information-
acquisition motivations and recall (H2d) and for the rejec-
tion of the predicted positive relationship between strength
of all purposive motivations and news recall (H2e).
Additionally, this interference or "blinders" interpretation
might have some heuristic value in the examination of the
effects of media entertainment programming; viewers primarily
interested in recreation/diversion gratifications will be
less likely to pick up information (be it how to act on a
date, how to fight, or how to vote) because they "turn off"
and "tune out" those frequencies from the spectrum of mes-

sages provided by the program.

130
In summary, research hypotheses involving recall were
derived from the premise,"one learns best when one is moti-
vated to learn." Based on the data gathered, the following
modification is offered: One learns best when one is moti-
vated by information—acquisition motivations.

Validity of the Direct Assessment Method of
Measuring Motivations

 

 

Given the inability of the researcher to "get inside
the respondent's head," the validity of the direct assessment
of motivations (whereby respondents react to a list of moti—
vations presented to them) is subject to some speculation.
Based on the study undertaken, this researcher evaluates
the direct assessment approach as functional although the
extent of its validity is unclear. Four arguments are
offered in support of this position.

(1) Empirical tests provided support for a number of
the conceptualized/hypothesized linkages with motivations
for viewing the news. For example, strength of information-
acquisition motivations was conceptualized as positively re-
lated to an antecedent condition, frequency of interpersonal
discussions about national and international news, and to a
consequent of exposure to the national newscasts, news recall.
Both relationships were supported by the data.

(2) Rejection of several hypotheses was more a reflec-
tion of poor intuitive guesses by the researcher than a con-

demnation of the motivation approach/method of assessing

131

motivations. For instance, this researcher predicted an
inverse relationship between perceived level of knowledge
vis-d-vis friends and colleagues about national and inter-
national news and strength of information-acquisition moti-
vations for watching the national news. Those who
perceived themselves as less knowledgeable were perceived
as turning to the news in an effort to achieve congruence
of information levels with their friends and colleagues.
While that conjecture made intuitive sense, the finding of
a positive relationship between perceived knowledge level
and strength of information-acquisition motivations is
equally appealing; those ahead are ahead because they turn
to information content seeking the acquisition of information.
(3) Yigy§£§0Q§SplaygdWCQE§iStencywiniresponsesmto the

motivation items. Respondents who evaluated a motivation
-Hii~_,iw M“ i”,_uw “_-,M“. a ,

-_.'-—s.-\.

 

asrimportantmtended to evaluateuthe other motivations with-

in thewcluster asequally_important (and vice-versa). This

“77“

 

was evidenced by the high standard score coefficient alphas
for each of the empirically derived clusters. Recall that
such consistency was not a function of response sets,as the

motivation_items were randomly ordered within the section

 

of the questionnaire devoted to motivations. Additionally,
while it could be argued that the high alphas were simply
the result of the factor and cluster analysis procedures,
the composition of the clusters that emerged was predicted

and made conceptual sense.

132

(4) Finally, the alternatives to the method of assess—
ing motivations used were (1) less informative, and (2)
less useful in predicting recall. For example, when re-
spondents were asked to tell the interviewer (in open-ended
fashion) why they watched the news, responses were predict-
able, terse, and not illuminating (e.g., "to be informed").

While these four arguments were viewed as compelling
some doubts about the validity of the measurement technique
remain.

(1) It is possible that while respondents demonstrated
consistency in responses, their responses need not be a re-
flection of the (strength of) motivations which influenced
their exposure to the news earlier that evening. Thus, re-
spondents might simply be reacting to motivations which make
sense at the time of the interview but may have never
entered their cognitions when the decision to watch the news
was made.

(2) At least in the case of news/educational programs
is the issue of the impact of respondent perception of the
relative social desirability of certain responses. Viewers
rated information-acquisition motivations for watching the
news as important and recreation/diversion motivations as
not important. Given the content on the newscast, it makes
sense for viewers to turn to the news for the acquisition
of information. On the other hand, television in America

is primarily entertainment oriented. This orientation is

133
reflected in the format and style of an increasing number
of newscasts produced across the nation. It is assumed
that viewers who watch these more intimate/jovial/relaxed
newscasts are motivated by recreation/diversion reasons as
well as those relating to information-acquisition. Finally,
viewers were interviewed by young adults who sounded edu-
cated and who stated that they were calling from Michigan
State University. This researcher suspects that some re—
spondents reacted in two ways to each of the motivations
read to them--they tried to fit the motivation to their use
of the program,and they tried to emphasize the motivations
they thought would fit the interviewer.

In short, this researcher has some nagging doubts
about the validity of the direct, reactions to a list,
assessment of motivations. However, given the predictive
utility of the measure used, this researcher is willing to
(l) assume that respondent scores reflected respondent
motivations, and (2) suggest the use of this approach in
examining the impact of exposure to other types of content

on the media.

APPENDIX A

The Questionnaires

134

Questionnaire: Wave 1

135

Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the
Department of Communication at Michigan State University.
We're calling people in the Lansing area to ask their
Opinions about television news programs, and we have a few
questions we'd like to ask you (the man/woman of the house).
This will only take about 5 minutes and we'd be very grate-
ful for your help.

1.

 

First, do you ever watch the national news programs
that are shown each evening at 6:30?
1 yes 2 no (GO TO 10)

About how Often do you watch one of these national news—
casts?

less than once a week

once or twice a week

three or four times a week

almost every day

We'd like you to think for a moment and then tell us what
are the reasons why you watch these national news programs.

Probe:

 

 

Probe:

 

 

Probe:

 

 

Probe:

 

 

Now I'm going to read you a list of reasons other people
gave us for watching the national news programs. For each
reason, I'd like you to tell me how important that is
when you watch the news.

(NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL = 1) (NOT VERY IMPORTANT = 2)
(SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT = 3) (VERY IMPORTANT = 4)
to relax after a hard day. . . . . . . . . . . .
to keep up with events in other countries. . . .
to help me plan ahead. . . . . . . . . . .
to have something to talk about with my friends
or family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I like to see interesting things that happen to
people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

because I have nothing else to do. . . . . . . .

to keep up with political events in our country.

because other people in the house are watching
it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

because I enjoy seeing things that have
happened today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lllll I III

(IF

6

I

IF

136

to keep up with the latest economic news . . . .
so I can forget about my problems for awhile . .
to see how I'll be affected by the day's events.

because my friends watch . . . . . . . . . . . .

the commentaries at the end of the program help
me understand what's going on. . . . . . . . .

finding out what's happening adds some excite—
ment to my life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

because when the newscasters talk, it's like
listening to a friend. . . . . . . . . . . . .

I feel a little better knowing that others are
even worse off than me . . . . . . . . . . . .

because I like to watch television and there's
nothing else on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did you get a chance to watch the national news this
evening?

1 yes 2 no
YES) _ ’—
What were the reasons why you watched tonight's news-
cast?

Probe:

 

 

Probe:

 

 

Probe:

 

 

Probe:

 

 

How much attention do you usually pay to the national news

when you do watch it? Would you say that you're
not attentive at all

not very attentive

somewhat attentive

very attentive

Sometimes, something on the news will make some people
want to find out more information about the news item.
Has this ever happened to you?

1 yes 2 no
YES) — _—
About how often do you find yourself going to other

media or friends to get more information about something

you saw on the news?

less than once a week
about once a week

a few times a week
almost every day
every day

137

10. Where do you usually get most of your news about what's
going on in the world today- from the newspapers, radio,
television, magazines or talking to other peOple?

l newspapers

:2: radio
_3_ television
_4__magazines

5 other people

Just a few more questions.

11. What is your age? Are you in your 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's,
or older?

_2_ 20's _3_ 30's _4_ 40's‘_5_ 50's _6_ Older
12. What was the last year of schooling you completed?

_1_ less than 8th grade

_2_ some high school

_3_ high school degree

_4_ some college

5 college degree(s)

Thank you very much for your time and COOperation.

13. Sex 1 male 2 female

___—

138

Questionnaire: Wave 2

139

Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the
Department of Communication at Michigan State University.
We're calling people in the Lansing area to ask their
opinions about television news programs, and we have a few
questions we'd like to ask you (the man/woman of the house).
This will only take about 5 minutes and we'd be very grate-
ful for your help.

1.

 

First, do you ever watch the national news programs that

are shown each evening at 6:30?
1 yes 2 no (GO TO 5)

About how often do you watch one Of these national news-
casts? (READ CHOICES)

_1_ less than once a week _2_ once or twice a week

_3_ three or four times a week_4_ almost every day (_8_ DK)

Did you get a chance to watch the national news this
evening?
1 yes 2 no

Now I'm going to read you a list of reasons other people
gave us for watching the national news programs. For each
reason, I'd like you to tell me how important that is
when you watch the news.
(FOR THOSE WHO WATCHED TONIGHT'S NEWSCAST. AFTER THEY
RESPOND TO EACH REASON, ASK: And how important was that
reason for you when you watched the news tonight?)
(NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL = 1) (NOT VERY IMPORTANT = 2)
(SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT = 3) (VERY IMPORTANT = 4)

USUALLY TONIGHT

 

to have something to talk about with
my friends or family. . . . . . . . .
because it's a habit. . . . . . . . . .
because the commentaries at the end of
the program help me understand what's
going on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
because I enjoy seeing things that have
happened today. . . . . . . .
to see how I'll be affected by the day's
events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to keep up with political events in our
country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
because when the newscasters talk, it's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

like listening to a friend. . . . . .
it's my only source of news for the
day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

it' s more informative than the local
papers or stations. . . . . . . . . .

finding out what's happening adds some
excitment to my life. . . . . . . . .

 

 

140

because my friends watch. . . . . . . .
to keep up with the latest breaking
news. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
it's something to listen to while I eat
or do other things around the house .
to get more information about an event
I heard about earlier . . . . . . . .
because I like to watch television &
there's nothing else on . . . . . . .
to keep up with the latest economic

news. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
it's entertaining . . . . . . . . . . .
so I can forget about my problems for
awhile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
it's a quick and easy way to get
informed. . . . . . . . . . . . .

because I have nothing else to do . . .

to keep up with our country's relations
with other countries . . . . . . . .
to relax after a hard day . . . . . . .
I like to see interesting things that
happen to people. . . . . . . . . . .
because other peOple in the house are
watching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
because the TV was on and the news
followed another program someone in
the house just watched. . . . . . . .
I feel a little better knowing that
others are even worse off than me . .
to keep up with events in other
countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to help me plan ahead . . . . . . . . .
to assure me that everything in the
world is pretty much the same . . ...

Just a few more questions.

5.

Thank you very much for your time and COOperation.

7.

What is your age? Are you in your 20's,
or older?

2 20's 3 30's 4 40's 5

:RE

 

30's,

50's

40's, 50's

_§_

older

What was the last year of schooling you completed?
1 less than 8th grade 2 some high school
school degree 4 some college 5 college degree(s)

8 RE

Sex 1 male 2 female

3

high

141

Questionnaire: Wave 3

142

Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the Dept.
of Communication at Michigan State University. We're calling
adults in the Lansing area asking their Opinions about tele-
vision news programs, and we have a few questions we'd like
to ask you (the man/woman of the house). This will only take
5 minutes and we'd be very grateful for your help.

1.

 

First, do you ever watch the national news programs that
are shown each evening at 6:30? yes no (GO TO 5,
SKIP 8 AND 9)

About how Often do you get to watch one of these national
newscasts? Would you say less than once a week, once,
twice, three, or four times a week, or just about every
day?

 

If zero equals not at all attentive and 100 equals
completely attentive, how much attention are you usually
able to pay to the national news when you watch it?

 

If zero equals not at all dependent on television and
100 equals totally dependent on it, how much would you
say you depend on television for news about what's

going on in the country and the world today?

 

About how informed would you say you generally are about
what's going on in our country and the world today, zero
equalling not at all informed and 100 equalling fully
informed?

 

Compared with your friends and those you work with--if
you work outside the house--how informed would you say
you generally are?

 

How informed would you say you are about what's taken
place today in our country and the world?

 

There are a lot of reasons why people watch the news,
with no one reason better than any others. I'm going to
read you a short list of reasons other people gave us
for watching the news and I'd like you to tell me how
important each of these reasons usually is when ygg
watch the news. Here, zero will equal not at all important
and 100 will equal very important.

to relax after a hard day. . . . . . . . . . .

to keep up with the latest economic news . . .

to keep up with our country's relations with

other countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so I can forget about my problems for awhile .

(IF

10.

11.

12.

13.

143

it's something to listen to while I eat
or do other things around the house. . . . .
to keep up with events in other countries . .
finding out what's happening adds some
excitement to my life. . . . . . . . . . . .
because I have nothing else to do. . . . . . .
because I like to watch television and there's
nothing else on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sometimes, something in the news on TV will make some
people want to find out more information about that news
item. Has this ever happened to you? yes no

YES)

About how Often do you find yourself going to other media
or friends to get more information about something you
saw on the national news? Would you say less than once a
week, once, twice, three, or four times a week, or just
about every day?

How often do you find yourself talking about American
and world news events with your family? Less than once
a week, once, twice, three, four or five times a week,
or just about every day?

 

How often do you find yourself talking about American and
world news events with your friends?

 

How about with those people you work with, if you work
outside the home?

 

If zero equals not at all important and 100 equals very
important, how important do you think your friends think
it is to be informed about American and world news
events?

 

Just a few more questions.

14.

15.
16.

17.

What is your age? Are you in your 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's
or Older?

 

How many years of school have you completed?

 

What is your occupation?

 

Finally, what is your race?

 

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

18.

Sex male female

144

Questionnaire: Wave 4

145

Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the De-
partment of Communication at Michigan State University.

We're calling adults in the Lansing area asking their opinions
about television news programs. We have some questions we'd
like to ask you (the man/woman of the house). This will take
only 10 minutes and we'd be very grateful for your help.

1.

(IF
5.

 

About how often do you get a chance to watch one of the
national news programs that are shown each evening at
6:30? Would you say less than once a week, once, twice,
three, or four times a week, or just about every day?
less than once a week (IF NO, ONLY READ QUESTIONS
once WITH * BEFORE THEM.)

twice

three

four

just about every day

dk

 

 

If zero equals not at all attentive and 100 equals
completely attentive, how much attention are you usually
able to give to the national news when you watch it?

 

How much would you say you depend on television for news
about what's going on in the country and the world? Here,
zero equals not at all dependent on TV for news and 100
equals totally dependent on it.

 

Did you get a chance to watch the national news this
evening?

1 yes 0 no
YES)
Which newscast did you watch, the one on CBS, NBC or
ABC?

1 CBS 2 NBC 3 ABC 8 dk
How much attention were you able to pay to tonight's
newscast? (0=not at all attentive and 100=comp1ete1y
attentive)

 

People often report that they are distracted from watching
the news because they also may be reading the newspaper,
eating, talking to others or working around the house.

How much of tonight's newscast did you miss because of
distractions such as these? Here, zero equals not missing

146

any of the newscast and 100 equals missing all of it.

 

*8. About how informed would you say you usually are about
what's going on in our country and the world, zero
equalling not at all informed and 100 equalling fully
informed?

 

*9. Compared with your friends, how informed would you say
you usually are? (zero equalling much less informed and
100 equalling much more informed)

 

*10.Compared with those you work with, if you work outside
the home?

 

*ll.How informed would you say you are about whatever's
taken place today in our country and the world?

average perceived informedness

 

 

12. There are a lot of reasons why people watch the news,
with no one reason better or worse than any others. I'm
going to read you a list of reasons other people gave us
for watching the news. I'd like you to tell me how impor-
tant each of these reasons was when you watched the news
tonight. Here, zero equals not at all important and 100
equals very important.

to relax after a hard day. . . . . . . . . . .
because you like to watch television and there's
nothing else on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

to keep up with our country's relations with

 

other countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to keep up with political events in our

country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
because when the newscasters talk, it's like

listening to a friend. . . . . . . . . . . .

because you have nothing else to do. . . . . .
to keep up with events in other countries. . .
because you like to see interesting things
that happen to people. . . . . . . . . . . .
to keep up with the latest economic news . . .
finding out what's happening adds some
excitement to your life. . . . . . . . . . .

147
*INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEWS RECALL ITEMS

FOR THOSE WHO WATCHED THE CBS NEWS:

One of the other things we're interested in is what people
can recall from watching the 6:30 national news. Often,
people can only remember a few stories. What stories can you
recall from tonight's national newscast?

 

CHECK OFF STORIES LISTED. ADD TO LIST THOSE STORIES RECALLED
BUT NOT ON LIST. FOR THOSE STORIES REMEMBERED, ASK: Do any
details about it come to mind? THEN ASK: Did you hear about
this story before the newscast?

AFTER THE RESPONDENT APPEARS TO HAVE FINISHED RECALLING
STORIES, ASK:

Do you recall any other stories?

IF YES: DO any details about it come to mind?
Did you hear about this story before the news-
cast?
IF NO: Now I'm going to read you a list of the (other)

stories on tonight.
For each story, tell me if you remember seeing
or hearing it on tonight's program.
FOR THOSE STORIES REMEMBERED:DO any details about it come to
mind?
Did you hear about this story
before the newscast?
FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT WATCH THE CBS NEWS: I'm going to read
you a list of some the stories making today's news. For each
story, tell me if you remember hearing about it today.
FOR THOSE STORIES REMEMBERED:DO any details about it come to
mind?

13. Stories (Monday, July 7,
1975) recall hear earlier

 

President Ford today asked
Congress to make changes in
the way gasoline taxes are

 

 

used
hl: 1 yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: _I_ yes w aid _0_ no
_9_no
Kennedy, speaking at the con-
ference of mayors in Boston
accused Ford of being in-
sensitive to the needs of the
cities
hl: 1 yes w/o aid _I_ yes
details: —I— yes w aid _Q__no
_9_no

148

recall hear earlier
Dow Jones average fell 10 3/4
points today which was the
biggest drop in nearly a month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hl: _1_ yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: 1 yes w aid _0_ no
_0__.no
The race horse Ruffian
will be buried at
the Belmont race track.
hl: 1 yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: _I— yes w aid _0_ no
L110
United Farm Workers picketed
in Mexico today to protest
alien workers from crossing
the border to the U.S.
hl: _l_ yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: 1 yes w aid _0_ no
_9__no
Israel retaliated against
Lebanon, killing 13 peOple
there today.
hl: _1_ yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: 1 yes w aid _0_ no
__o__no
That the recent fighting in
Lebanon was between the
Christians and Moslems there.
hl: 1 yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: —I_ yes w aid _0_ no
_9_no
That a general strike in
Argentina began today.
hl: ‘_1_ yes w/o aid _1__yes
details: 1 yes w aid _0_ no
_0_no
Alligators are now so
numerous that they might
soon be taken off the en-
dangered species list.
hl: 1 yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: ”I” yes w aid _0_ no
Lno

149

recall hear earlier

 

The quarter, half dollar,
and dollar are being revised
in honor of the Bicentennial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hl: _1_ yes w/o aid _1_ yes
details: 1 yes w aid _0_ no
_0_ no

additional stories remembered hear earlier
1. 1 yes _0_
2. 1 yes _0_
3. 1 yes _2_
4. 1 yes _0_
5. 1 yes _0_

 

sum of additional stories

no

I10

no

no

no

 

14. About how often do you find yourself going to the media
friends to get more information about something you saw

on the national news? Would you say less than once a

week, once, twice, three, or four times a week, or just

about every day?

less than once a week
once

twice

three

four

just about every day
dk

or

*15.How often do you find yourself talking about American and
world events with your family? Less than once a week, once,
twice, three, four, or five times a week, or just about

 

every day?

less than once a week 8 dk
once *‘~
twice

three

four

five

justabout every day

*16.How Often do you find yourself talking about American and

world events with your friends?
_0_ less than once a week

once

twice

three

 

150

_4_ four
5 five
:5: just about every day
_8_ dk Sum

 

*17.If zero equals not at all important and 100 equals very
important,how important do you think your friends thiflk
it is to be informed about America and world events?

 

Just a few more questions.

*18.What is your age?

 

*19.How many years of school have you completed?
8th grade or less

some high school

high school degree

some college

college degree(s)

refused

*20.Finally, what is your race?
white

black
Mexican-American
American Indian
other

refused

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

*21.Sex: 1 male
2 female

APPENDIX B

Respondent Demographic Characteristics

151
APPENDIX B

Respondent Demographic Characteristics

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 4
(n=200) (n=209) (n=514)

 

Sex
Male 38.6% 45.9% 40.9%
Female 61.4% 54.1% 59.1%
Education
Less than 8th grade 3.9% 3.3% 3.9%
Some high school 9.5% 5.7% 6.8%
High school degree 22.2% 27.8% 27.7%
Some college 28.3% 27.3% 30.7%
College degree(s) 36.4% 35.9% 30.7%
Age
18-29 34.8% 35.8% 40.4%
30-39 25.3% 19.6% 12.7%
40-49 14.1% 13.9% 13.9%
50-59 12.6% 13.4% 10.9%
Older 13.1% 17.2% 22.1%
Race
White - — 91.4%
Black - - 6.5%
Other - - 2.0%

APPENDIX C

Correlation Matrices
for Motivations for Viewing the News

Wave 1

Variable 1

DOOM

16
17
18

501
502

152
APPENDIX C

Correlation Matrices

for Motivations for Viewing the News

II II II II

Key

to relax after a hard day

to keep up with events in other countries

to help me plan ahead

to have something to talk about with my friends
or family

I like to see interesting things that happen to
people

because I have nothing else to do

to keep up with political events in our country

because other people in the house are watching it

because I enjoy seeing things that have happened
today

to keep up with the latest economic news

so I can forget about my problems for awhile

to see how I'll be affected by the day's events

because my friends watch

the commentaries at the end of the program help
me understand what's going on

finding out what's happening adds some excitement
to my life

because when the newscasters talk, its like
listening to a friend

I feel a little better knowing that others are
even worse off than me

because I like to watch television and there's
nothing else on

recreation/discussion cluster sum

information-acquisition cluster sum

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOH we
we OOH
NO HO
OO OO
vv ON
OO OO
VO O

OO N

OO OH
OH ON
HO OO
OHI «O
OO Ow
OO we
ON Ow
HN Ow
OI Ov
OHI Ov
Nv HO
vO ON
NOO HOO

NO ov we OO VO Ov OO
HO OO ON OO O N OH
OH NH HN ON OH NH ON
NH OH OH OO ON O HO
HN OH OH ON OH NN OO
ON vO vN OO ON ON OO
OH ON OH ON ON OO HO
NH O NN ON OO ON NO
ON HO OO OO Hv NO Ov
N O OH NH OH NI N
ON ON OO HH H OH OH
OI v OI OI NI OHI OI
OH NO OO NO O OH NO
OO «O ON NO H O NH
ON OH O NN NH OH O
OH NH OH NH O HI O
HH O O O OHI ONI OHI
O O HHI v OI OHI OHI
OH VO vO ON NH N NH
HN ON NH OO O HH O
O OH O NH N N OH

H<ZOO<HO mmB ZH MBHHdZDZZOU

 

 

 

 

OH HO OHI Ov OO NN HN OI OHI NO OO
ON OO vO Ov we Ov Ov me me HO ON
N .ON OI OH OO ON OH HH O OH HN
O «N O NO «O OH NH O O VO ON
OH OO OI OO ON O OH O HHI «O NH
NH HH OI NO NN NN NH O O ON OO
OH H NI O H NH O OHI OI NH O

NI OH OHI OH O OH HI ONI OHI N HH
N OH OI NO NH O N OHI OHI NH O

O OH O HH NH O NH O O ON O

OH OH OH NN OH OH OH O O OO OO
O OH HH ON O OH OH O ov OH HO
HH NN ON ON ON ON HN OH OH ON OO
NH OH O ON OH OH OH ON OH NO OO
O OH OH ON OH ON NO HN OH HO Nv
NH OH OH HN OH OO ON ON NN OH NO
O O O OH ON HN HN OH ov OH OO
O O OO OH OH OH NN ow HN OH ON
ON OO OH ON NO HO OH OH OH OO OO
O OO HO OO OO NO NO OO ON OO OO
O H O O O OH OH NH OH OH HH

.mefimz OZH940H 92¢ mZOHBHHMMMOUMMBZH moeodm

NOO
HOO

Wave 2

Variable l

\ICDUI

\DCO

10

11
12
13

14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23

24
25

26

27
28
29

501
502
503

154
Key

to have something to talk about with my friends
or family

because it's a habit

because the commentaries at the end of the
program help me understand what's going on

because I enjoy seeing things that have happened
today

to see how I'll be affected by the day's events

to keep up with political events in our country

because when the newscasters talk, it's like
listening to a friend

it's my only source of news for the day

it's more informative than the local papers or
stations

finding out what's happening adds some excitement
to my life

because my friends watch

to keep up with the latest breaking news

it's something to listen to while I eat or do
other things around the house

to get more information about an event I heard
about earlier

because I like to watch television & there's
nothing else on

to keep up with the latest economic news

it's entertaining

so I can forget about my problems for awhile

it's a quick and easy way to get informed

because I have nothing else to do

to keep up with our country's relations with
other countries

to relax after a hard day

I like to see interesting things that happen to
people

because other people in the house are watching

because the TV was on and the news followed
another program someone in the house just
watched

I feel a little better knowing that others are
even worse off than me

to keep up with events in other countries

to help me plan ahead

to assure me that everything in the world is
pretty much the same

recreation cluster sum

information—acquisition cluster sum

diversion cluster sum

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOH HNI OO Oe OO OO Oe OO OO OO O ON OHI eI OOI ONI eNI ON ON OHI O eI O ON OO NO ON OH ON NH HH eO
HNI OOH OO O OI HHI OI eHI HNI NOI ON NO OO OO Oe OO OO HH O OH NO ON NN OO H O O eN ON OI NN OH
OO OO OOH ON Oe OO O ON OH O O ee ON NN N ON NH eO NO OO ee OO Oe HO OO Ne Oe OO OO Oe OO OO
oe O ON OH ON NN ON NH eH ON OI OH OHI NH OI OI .NI NH O NI NH eI O ON eH OH HH HH OI OH N NN
OO OI oe ON HO Oe OH Oe NN OO O HH OI N OHI OI HHI HO HN N OH eH O ON ON NN OO ON ON eN eN OO
OO HHI OO NN Oe OO ON oe OO ee NI O OI e OHI NHI OHI OH NN NI N O OH eH eH ON NO ON HH HH HN eO
Oe OI O ON OH ON HN NH Oe OO OH HI OI OI OI NI NI OH NI OI VI OHIHT.NI OH NH O NI O NI OI O

OO eHI ON NH Oe oe NH Ne Ne HO NI OH OI OI ONI OHI NHI eN eH NI O e O NH HN ON OH O ON OH O OH
OO HNI OH eH NN OO Oe Ne OO OO O O OHI HNI OHI ONI NHI HI N OHI OI..ޢIe O ON eN O O ON H eI O

OO NOI O ON OO ee OO HO OO Oe eI NH NNI NHI NOI ONI ONI OH O OHI OI eI eI O OH NH OH eI O O OI OH
O ON O OI O NI OH NI O eI O O OH O HH OH HO OI N ON O e NH O H OHIO O NH OHI NI NH
ON NO ee OH HH O HI OH O NH O OH NH ON eH OH ON HO e O NO HN OH OO NH ON N HN ON O OH NN
OHI OO ON OHI OI OI OI OI OHI NNI OH NH OO OO ON NO Oe N NI NH eH NN NO eH OI NH O OH ON OH ON HN
eI OO ON NH N e OI OI HNI NHI O ON OO HO NN. Oe Ne HH N e ON O NH ON H eH O O OH O NH O

OOI Oe O OI OHI OHI OI ONI OHI NOI HH eH ON NN eN eO OO OI OI HI ON NH O OH OHI OI HI OH H ONI NI eI
ONI OO ON OI OI NHI NI OHI ONI ONI OH OH NO Oe eO Oe HO O HI N OH OH eH ON O O N eN HH eI ON N

eNI OO NH NI HHI OHI NI NHI NHI ONI HO ON Oe Ne OO HO OO O O OH OH OH HH OH OI HI HI NH eH NHI O O

ON HH eO NH HO OH OH eN HI OH OI HO N HH OI O O HH ON OH OH H OH NN NH HN OH N OH eH NH HN
ON O NO O HN NN NI eH N O N e NI N OI HI O ON OH HH eH eH OH OH e H eO OH OH NH NH ON
OHI OH OO NI N NI OI NI OHI OHI ON O NH e HI N OH OH HH HH ON O ON N OH N OH ON OH eH HN eH
O NO ee NH OH N eI O OI OI O NO eH ON ON OH OH OH eH ON OH HN OH OO OH NN O NN NO O ON ON
eI ON OO eI eH O OHI e HHI eI e HN NN O NH OH OH H eH O HN NH NN OH O OH OH OH ON eH ON NO
O NN me O O OH HI O e eI NH OH NO NH O eH HH OH OH ON OH NN OH ON OH OH OH ON NO OO OH OH
ON OO HO ON ON eH NI NH O O O OO eH ON OH ON OH NN OH N OO OH ON ON eO ON O NO OO NH eO OO
OO H OO eH ON eH OH HN ON OH H NH OI H OHI O OI NH e OH OH O OH eO ON OO HN ON ON OH eO OO
OO O Ne OH NN ON NH ON eN NH OHI ON NH eH OI O HI HN H N NN OH OH ON OO ON ON NN ON OO HO HO
ON O Ne HH OO NO O OH O OH O N O O HI N HI OH eO OH O OH OH O HN ON OH ON NN NH HO NO
OH eN OO HH ON ON NI O O eI O HN OH O OH eN NH N OH ON NN OH ON NO ON NN ON ON eO NN HO ON
ON ON OO OI ON HH O ON ON O NH ON ON OH H HH eH OH OH OH NO ON NO OO ON ON NN eO OO ON ON HO
NH OI Oe OH eN HH NI OH H O OHI O OH O ONI eI NHl eH NH eH O eH OO NH OH OO NH NN ON OH OO ON
HH NN OO N eN HN OI O eI OI NI OH ON NH NI ON O NH NH HN ON ON OH eO eO HO HO HO ON OO OO Oe
eO OH MO NN OO eO O OH O OH NH NN HN O eI N O HN ON eH ON NO OH OO OO HO NO ON HO ON Oe Ne
OOO NOO HOO HH OH OH eN OH ON ON eH ON NH OH O HN NN N NH O O e OH H ON ON NN O ON O N OH

H4284HD mmB ZH NEHQZDZSOU
.mefig OZHQGOH 92¢ OZOHBfigOUmmBZH moeodh

OOO

Wave 4

Variable l
2

3

501
502

156
Key

to relax after a hard day

because you like to watch television and there's
nothing else on

to keep up with our country's relations with
other countries

to keep up with political events in our country

because when the newscasters talk, it's like
listening to a friend

because you have nothing else to do

to keep up with events in other countries

because you like to see interesting things
that happen to people

to keep up with the latest economic news

finding out what's happening adds some excitement
to your life

recreation diversion cluster sum

information-acquisition cluster sum

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOH HO eO ON eO OO Oe ON OO O OI O
HO OOH HO OH. NN ON eO OO OO HO OO OO
eO HO Ne OO NO NO Oe NN NO O N O
ON OH OO HO NO OO ON NH OH OI OI OI
eO NN NO NO ON NN OO ON ON O N N
OO ON NO OO NN eN OO ON ON N O O
Oe eO Oe ON OO OO OO OO NO eN HN HO
ON OO NN NH ON ON OO NO Oe NN ON OO
OO OO NO OH ON ON NO Oe OO ON ON NO
O HO O OI O N eN NN ON NO NO OO
OI OO N OI N O HN ON OO NO OO Oe
O OO O OI N O HO OO NO OO Oe Oe
NOO HOO O e O N OO O OH O N H

HHZOGNHD mma ZH MBHHNZDZEOU
.meemz UZHQdOH 02¢ OZOHBOHmmmOUMMBZH MOBU¢M

 

NOO
HOO

FMV‘O‘

(D

APPENDIX D

Skewness of Motivation Items
Common to Waves 1, 2, and 4

 

Skewness of Motivation Items

Common to Waves 1, and 4*
Variable** Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 4
relax .269 .210 .891
nothontv 1.388 1.315 1.650
newscaster .280 .279 .731
nothtodo 1.225 1.426 1.916
excit .321 .302 .393
othcoun -.966 -1.065 -.679
poli —2.239 -1.100 -.792
eco -l.329 -.865 —.854
seeint .841 -.727 —.492

in waves 1 and 2, four qualitative response categories
were provided (not important at all, not very important,
somewhat important, very important). In wave 4, a numeric
ratio scale was provided (zero equalling not at all im-
portant and 100 equalling very important).

**where relax = to relax after a hard day

newscaster = because when the newscaster talks, it's like
listening to a friend

nothtodo = because I/you have nothing else to do

excit = finding out what's happening adds some excitment
to my/your life

othcoun = to keep up with our country's relations with
other countries

poli = to keep up with political events in our country
eco = to keep up with the latest economic news

seeint = because I/you like to see interesting things
that happen to people

REFERENCES

159
REFERENCES

Allen, Thomas H.
1968 "Mass media use patterns in a Negro ghetto."
Journalism Quarterly, 45:525-527.

 

Anderson, G. Lester
1959 "Basic learning theory for teachers." In Charles
E.Skinner (ed.), Educational Psychology. Engle-
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Atkin, Charles K.

 

1972 "Anticipated Communication and Mass Media Infor-
mation Seeking." Public Opinion Quarterly,
36:69-79.

Atkin, Charles K.
1973 "Instrumental Utilities and Information Seeking."
In Peter Clarke (ed.), New Models for Mass Com-
munication Research, Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

 

Atkin, Charles K., and W. Gantz.

1974 "Children's response to broadcast news: exposure,
evaluation, and learning." Presented to the
Association for Education in Journalism, San
Diego, California.

Atkin, Charles K., and G. Heald
1975 "Impact of political advertising on knowledge,
agenda and affect." Presented to the American
Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago,
Illinois.

Babbie, Earl R. '
1973 Survey Research Methods. Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Inc.

 

Bauer, Raymond A.
1964 "The obstinate audience: the influence process
from the point of view of social communication."
American Psychologist, 19:319-28.

 

Berelson, Bernard B.

1949 "What 'missing' the newspaper means." In Paul F.
Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton (eds.), Com-
munication Research, 1948-9. New York: Duell,
Sloan and Pearce.

 

 

Blumler, Jay 6., J.R. Brown, and D. McQuail
1970 "The social origins of the gratifications associated
with television viewing." Leeds: The University of
Leeds. (mimeo)

160

Blumler, Jay G., and D. McQuail
1970 "The audience for election television. In Jeremy
Tunstall (ed.), Media Sociology: A Reader. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.

 

Booth, Alan
1970 "The recall of news items" Public Opinion Quart—
erly, 36:604-610.

 

Cannell, Charles F., and H. Sharp
1958 "The impact of the 1955—56 Detroit newspaper
strike." Journalism Quarterly, 35:26-35.

 

Epstein, Edward Jay
1974 News from Nowhere. New York: Vintage Books.

 

Fitzsimmons, Stephen J., and H.G. Osburn
1968 "The impact of social issues and public affairs
television documentaries." Public Opinion
Quarterly, 32:379-397.

 

 

Genova, Bistrakapka
1975 "On the knowledge gap phenomenon." Presented to
the International Communication Association,
Chicago, Illinois.

Glass, Gene V., and J.C. Stanley ‘
1970 Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Greenberg, Bradley S.
1974 "Gratifications of television viewing and their
correlates for British children." In Jay G.
Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds.), The Uses of Mass
Communications: Perspectives on Gratifications
Research. Beverly Hills, Sage.

 

 

 

Greenberg, Bradley S., J.E. Brinton, and R.S. Farr
1965 "Diffusion of news about an anticipated major
news event." Journal of Broadcasting, 9:129-141.

 

Hazard, William R.
1962 "Some personal and social influences on telecast
viewing." Public Opinion Quarterly, 26:429-434.

 

Herzog, Herta
1944 "What do we really know about daytime serial
listeners?" In Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frank N.
Stanton (eds.), Radio Research 1942-1943. New
York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.

 

161

Johnson, Norris R.

 

1973 "Television and politicization: a test of com-
peting models." Journalism Quarterly, 50:447-455,
474.

Katz, Elihu, J.G. Blumler, and M. Gurevitch
1974 "Utilization of mass communication by the in-
dividual." In Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz
(eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current
Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly
Hills, Sage.

Katz, Elihu, and D. Foulkes
1962 "On the use of mass media as 'escape.'" Public
Opinion Quarterly, 26:377-388.

 

Katz, Elihu, M. Gurevitch, and H. Hass
1973 "On the use of the mass media for important
things." American Sociological Review, 38:164-181.

 

Kimball, Penn
1959 "People without papers." Public Opinion Quarterly,
23:389-398.

Klapper, Joseph
1960 The Effects of Mass Communication. New York:
The Free Press.

 

Kline, F. Gerald, P.V. Miller, and A.J. Morrison
1974 "Adolescents and family planning information."
In Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds.) The Uses
of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on
Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Lasswell, Harold D.
1948 "The structure and function of communication in
society." In Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Roberts
(eds.), The Process and Effects of Mass Com-
munication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 

McLeod, Jack M., and L.B. Becker
1974 "Testing the validity of gratification measures
through political effects analysis." In Jay G.
Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds.), The Uses of Mass
Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifica—
tions Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

McLeod, Jack M., L.B. Becker, and J.E. Byrnes
1974 "Another look at the agenda setting function of
the press." Communication Research, 1:131-166.

 

162

McLeod, Jack, S. Ward, and K. Tancill
1965-66 "Alienation and uses of the mass media." Public
Opinion Quarterly, 29:583-594.

 

McQuail, Denis, J.G. Blumler, and J.R. Brown
1972 "The television audience: a revised perspective."
In Denis McQuail, Sociology of Mass Communications.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Mindak, William H., and G.D. Hursh
1965 "Television's functions on the assassination
weekend." In Bradley S. Greenberg and Edwin B.
Parker (eds.), The Kennedy Assassination and the
American Public. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.

 

Moser, C.A. and G. Kalton
1972 Survey Methods in Social Investigation. New York:
Basic Books, Inc.

NOrdenstreng, Kaarle
1970 "Policy of news transmission: excerpts from a
Finnish exercise in cooperation between broad—
casting practitioners and researchers." Presented
to the International Association for Mass Com-
munication Research, Konstanz, West Germany.

Peled, Tsiyona and E. Katz
1974 "Media functions in wartime: the Israeli home
front in October 1973." In Jay G. Blumler and
Elihu Katz (eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications:
Current Perspectives on Gratiination Research.
Beverly Hills: Sage.

Robinson, John P.
1971 "The audience for national TV news programs."
Public Opinion Quarterly, 35:403-405.

 

Robinson, John P.
1972 "Toward defining the functions of television."
In Eli A. Rubinstein, George A. Comstock, and
John P. Murray (eds.), Television and Social
Behavior Vol. 4, Television in Dayfto-Day Life:
Patterns of Use. Washington: Government Printing
Office.

 

Roloff, Michael E.
1975 Mediated and Unmediated Social Influences on
Modes of Conflict Resolution. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Michigan State University.

163

Roper, Burns
1974 Trends in Public Attitudes toward Television
and other Mass Media, 1959-1974. New York:
Television Information Office.

Rosengren, Karl E.

1974 "Uses and gratifications: a paradigm outlined."
In Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds.), The Uses
of Mass Communications: Perspectives on
Gratification Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

 

Rosengren, Karl E., and S. Windahl
1972 "Mass media consumption as a functional alter-
native." In Denis McQuail (ed.), Sociology of
Mass Communications. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

 

 

Schramm, Wilbur
1965 "Communication in crisis." In Bradley S. Green-
berg and Edwin B. Parker (eds.), The Kennedy
Assassination and the American Public. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

 

 

Schramm, Wilbur, J. Lyle, and E.B. Parker
1961 Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stan-
ford: Stanford University Press.

 

Stern, Andrew
1971 "Exploring the impact of television news."
Unpublished paper.

Wright, Charles R.
1960 "Functional analysis and mass communication."
Public Opinion Quarterly, 24:605-620.

 

MICHIGAN S

TRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
I WI IIIHIWIIIIIHllllllllllllmIIIIIIHIIIIMHI
930001 1 2064

312